He interpreted Altemeyer correctly. Not even MacDonald’s most ardent defenders can claim this now

He did. But he didn’t interpret him as confirmation of an argument that you presented, namely Jewish ethnocentrism. It is not even mentioned in the passage on the CofC page 190 that is quoted. On this page, MacDonald debates the “conflation of … hostility toward other ethnic groups and authoritarianism” and links authoritarianism with pronennes to participate in “group strategies” (of any kind, including those with hostility to outgrups), further citing Altemeyer and RWA scales. Ethnocentrism is not even mentioned here.

So the obvious strategy of MacDonald’s critics was to build a straw man out of the passages in his books and then claim that he misrepresented resources.

Even “Divine Right” fell for your trick.

[…] amused to see Slavoj Žižek there — wasn’t he the guy caught plagiarizing “white supremacist” Jared Taylor? The irony is too rich here, since Taylor’s mild-mannered prose in fact […]

As an IQ realist and a supporter of the meritocracy, I’ve found the opposition by other libertarian types to high-tech immigration and foreign admissions to Ivy League institutions to be somewhat iffy and contradictory, myself.

Many republicans and libertarians support free markets and oppose affirmative action, and rightfully so,but somehow this doesn’t apply to immigrants. They want affirmative action for Americans over foreigners that provide a better value and or are more qualified.

Your argument sounds awfully silly to people who know what affirmative action is.

It consists of taking action to include people who were previously excluded. That would be foreigners, not natives. Immigration, therefore, may qualify as a form of affirmative action. Exclusion of foreigners can not.

Yeah, I’d never heard of this guy, either, but I guess he’s a big shot. According to wiki: “The British Royal Opera House announced on January 2013 that four new operas inspired by Žižek’s writings have been commissioned.”

And I’m sure that each one of them will be loads of fun to sit through. I wouldn’t miss that for anything.

Maybe Ron should offer “NB” her own column.

Only saw him answering quesions in front of his post during conference. I was student then and read his post without asking him any question. The post is about brain size among major racial groups. Be honest, I was quite skeptical of his presentation at conference since I was brain washed by dominant view. After backing to school, I digged out his publications from library and started treating his findings seriously.

AG, what did you think of Rushton when you met him? You kind of left us hanging.

I met Rushton in person in 90s during neuroscience conference.

Ron,
How about arranging an English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together”? Perhaps the translator will need anonymity.
Robert

Ron, please do continue to write more. I miss your fascinating work.

And that famous Georgian’s surname meant “a Jew’s Son”.

I’m Canadian so as a teenager I actually phoned Rushton up to get his opinions on my Oprah brain size theory:

http://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/the-brain-size-of-the-worlds-most-successful-woman/

I was terrified he would be a racist & sexist (as the media had portrayed him) & react badly to me praising a black woman’s intellect, but he was incredibly open minded, encouraging, & eloquent off the cuff. He got it immediately. He thought it was absolutely fascinating & felt I should publish it in the journal Intelligence. I ended up just blogging about it instead. I just wish I hadn’t procrastinated so very, very long, so I could have sent him the links to get his feedback, but I had no idea he would die that soon.

He was a brilliant man. A rare original thinker. The Darwin of the 20th century. RIP.

“Rushton‘s research was absolutely fascinating and probably worth a Nobel Prize, though it might take thirty years for such controversial material to become accepted to allow it.”

When he passed away, I also mentioned that he might be just another Galileo who could only be appreciated later. He is a true scientist who respects fact, not ideology.

“I had worked out what might be a plausible model for the evolution of increased intelligence in the Chinese people”

I read your Chinese model at Steve Hsu’s blog. This downward social mobility (fenja) model makes sense. After extensive world wide travel, I noticed that East Asian countries have highest of people:land ratio. In traditional China, each household only had 0.3 acre to support the whole family. With limited land to support whole family, you need high yield per acre which needs higher IQ to do so. According to Alan Greenspan, typical Chinese farmer productivity per acre is 2 times that of vietnamese, 3 times of that Indian farmers. So this increased people:land ratio also contributes to requirement for intelligence. The land rent ratio also reflects supply:demand ratio between people and land. In China, 70% harvest goes to landlord. In India, 50% harvest goest to landlord. With such high demand on Chinese farmers who have to give away 70% their harvest, the challenge is very high to survive in such enviroment. I believe this also adds to the development of East Asian intelligence.

I believe free flow of idea which help accelerate our knowlege and science. I often use enfluential sites like yours to spread my original useful ideas. At end, I want truth prevail and ignorance fall.

So plagiarize my ideas please.

For my sins, I’d never heard of Zizek either, but just yesterday I read this on The 30 Harshest Philosopher-on-Philosopher Insults in History :

Noam Chomsky on Slavoj Žižek

There’s no ‘theory’ in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find… some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a 12-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying.

http://flavorwire.com/469065/the-30-harshest-philosopher-on-philosopher-insults-in-history/3

Handle, I second what you said about providing a platform for extraordinary writers, but you forgot to mention that this site also provides a platform for Steve Sailer.

Let me just express my sincere gratitude for all the good work you are doing here at this site. Supporting and providing a single platform for all these extraordinary writers and providing free archives of some of the great American journals is a great public service. Thank you.

Hi Ron,

If the topic still retains your interest, you might read my paper on U.S. ethnic/race differences by generation http://humanvarieties.org/2014/06/25/u-s-ethnicrace-differences-in-aptitude-by-generation-an-exploratory-meta-analysis/. It was largely inspired by your many eloquent, if empirically deficient, essays on the matter.

CH with some brief comments on the pitfalls of IQ fetishism:

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/the-myopia-of-iq-fetishism/

Though I read Unz’s TAC article on Hispanic crime a long time ago and can’t remember the meat and potatoes of it, if its evidence relies on law enforcement or state police statistics I’d have to say the conclusions are flawed.

There’s an increasingly apparent undercurrent of classifying Hispanic criminals as “white,” while I assume they classify Hispanic victims of crime as “Hispanic.”

Just look at this, and tell me if you’d consider many these individuals as “White,” who were classified as White.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitives.aspx

There’s no reason to assume our rules wouldn’t utilize statistics as propaganda.

It stands to reason that undercutting American labor would be good for global industrialists who want to take advantage of the physical, legal and cultural infrastructure made by Americans.  What is not understandable is why Americans should allow the theft of the benefits of their work and heritage.  If foreigners want the advantages of America, they are free to build the infrastructure and adopt the legal and cultural elements of America… if they can.  If they can’t, they have no business coming to the USA to be parasites on Americans.  Neither do industrialists have any business stealing the heritage and work of the people who’ve created the environment they find so genial.

“… a very amusing piece on an obscure ultra-right blog, conspiratorially suggesting that Zizek was actually a secret fan of MacDonald and Taylor and had deliberately plagiarized their White Nationalist writings in order to provoke a media firestorm and thereby better publicize their highly controversial ideas. ”

Maybe not so outrageous an idea: Listen to Richard Spencer starting at 2:19.

As an IQ realist and a supporter of the meritocracy, I’ve found the opposition by other libertarian types to high-tech immigration and foreign admissions to Ivy League institutions to be somewhat iffy and contradictory, myself.

Many republicans and libertarians support free markets and oppose affirmative action, and rightfully so,but somehow this doesn’t apply to immigrants. They want affirmative action for Americans over foreigners that provide a better value and or are more qualified.

In a free market and meritocracy, we shouldn’t limit our labor options. The U.S. is only 1/20 of the world’s population. By restricting labor, we hurt the competitiveness of our industries.

Here’s Zizek’s own explanation of the plagiarism. It’s pretty close to your guess.

By the way, one passage I read by Zizek seemed to just lift some ideas without attribution straight from GK Chesterton. (Zizek has explicitly cited Chesterton as an influence on his thought.)

Also, a humanities professor I know online said publicly that Zizek comes “perilously close” to plagiarizing Lacan. A second humanities professor “Liked” that comment.

He’s not dodging anything. The wealth of information provided by MacDonald cannot be discounted by noting a single contentious point.

Does the wealth of information include studies where Jews tie Episcopalian and Unitarian WASPs for least ethnocentric group?

A mistake is not necessarily the same thing as a lie,

There three ways to interpret MacDonald’s use of Altmeyer:

1) He interpreted Altemeyer correctly. Not even MacDonald’s most ardent defenders can claim this now (if anyone wants to, however, please do so. It will be good for laughs.)

The wealth of points made by MacDonald cannot be refuted by the source you provided, not even close.

The problem is this – the more cross referencing is done the more MacDonald’s evidence contradicts him*. I’m not sure even Holocaust deniers were stupid enough to, constantly, not misquote historical sources but misquote sources that contradict their position. Usually Holocaust deniers make up evidence or make theories that they can’t really prove but think makes sense.

Good work putting this idiot in charge of modern American anti-semitism – the Jews thank you.

The “measure of ethnocentrism” in the link you provided is as follows from the paper:

But MacDonald says authoritarianism is a good a measure, a measure from a study where Jews tie Episcopalians and Unitarians for lowest on this trait.

MacDonald in his own words describes why it’s a satisfactory metric:

Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups (Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews.59

* http://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-franz-boas-you-never-knew/

In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences … and not just between individuals. This is apparent in a speech he gave in 1894 under the title “Human Faculty as Determined by Race.”

MacDonald’s main argument in “Culture of Critique” is that Jewish intellectuals constantly undermine established gentile structures of authority (behavioral norms, ideological reference points, etc). So Undiscovered, thanks for proving him right on that point.

I actually think it’s only partly right. I think the Jewish people have an excellent sense of the zeitgeist that they uncannily “feel out” through mimetic participation in society. When the authority structures work for them (because they work for everybody), most Jews just go with the flow. Because it’s personally profitable.

When the structures get creaky, Jews will start to notice the cracks in the walls. Not because of any grand conspiracy, but just from a practical “grass roots” point of view, partly motivated in some cases by an animus against authority that is overbearing. But partly because Jews have that ingrained growing fear of revolution that attacks people with money and power, so they are sensitive to early signs.

When they are “undermining” the authority structures (from the more dogmatic goy point of view), they are actually softening the structures so the society can continue to function without collapsing to soon. So their “subversion” sort of softens the fall and makes it a soft/slow decline instead of a fast and hard collapse.

They do this for practical “ground up” reasons mostly, with it central coordination. But they all share the same gut level fear of collapse, so they are motivated as a group. It looks coordinated from the outside, but it’s mostly instinct plus small level pragmatic thinking to maintain personal security.

“Svigor, stop dodging the question: If one of the studies MacDonald used to prove Jews are hyperethnocentric actually found Jews tie WASP Anglicans and Unitarians for least ethnocentric, how is that not a lie?”

He’s not dodging anything. The wealth of information provided by MacDonald cannot be discounted by noting a single contentious point.

“Please explain how this isn’t a deliberate lie, and also explain why we should believe anything he’s written on immigration, ethnocentrism.”

1. A mistake is not necessarily the same thing as a lie, which you know but ignore because you hope to libel the man, his reputation, and his broader beliefs by pointing to it. You cannot prove he deliberately falsified anything, you only assume he did because it fits your narrative.

2. Easy. Basic logic. Washington lost more battles than he won. How can anyone dispute the fact that he was a terrible leader? ….oh, wait. The wealth of points made by MacDonald cannot be refuted by the source you provided, not even close. If MacDonald is wrong on 50% of what he says, what’s left is still significant and troubling if true.

In any case, the paper you cite does not prove what you think it does. The author quotes a few passages, makes sweeping generalizations about what MacDonald did and didn’t do, and openly attacks the man’s character: “ I can think of no other way to describe this conduct than as an act of deliberate fraud.” The Jewish author of this paper clearly had a bone in this fight. So, I think caution is in order when sourcing him.

The “measure of ethnocentrism” in the link you provided is as follows from the paper:

“[A]re “very accepting” subjects equally authoritarian in all religions? Or do different denominations (as argued earlier) produce different levels of authoritarianism even among the strongly committed? If we examine just those subjects who answered the (0-5) “still accept” question with either a “4” or a “5” (that is, they indicated they “nearly completely” or “completely” accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood), who do you think were the most authoritarian of all these “true believers”? Fundamentalists (185.1) and Mennonites (185.3)among the students, Mennonites (202.1) and Fundamentalists (208.5) among the parents. The (rarer) United Church members, Anglicans, and Jews who were just as accepting of their religions scored about 25 points lower. True-believing Catholics and Lutherans lay somewhere in between.

So not only are Jews among the least authoritarian of religious groups, according to Altemeyer highly religious Jews are among the least authoritarian of the highly religious. ”

This is a highly dubious method of accessing “authoritarianism.” In any case, it seems to primarily consist of self-reported polling data concerning whether Jews “ ‘nearly completely’ or ‘completely’ accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood).” Considering that many American Jews are, on average, better educated, this could simply be an acknowledgement by intelligent Jews of the implausibility of some sections of their religious texts (Jonah swallowed by a whale, the Garden of Eden, etc.).

Furthermore, the datum concerns acceptance of religious beliefs. It does not consider Jewish opinions, attitudes, and customs as a whole in either the US or overseas (a large portion of MacDonald’s work). Taken by itself, it can’t be used as evidence for or against “authoritarianism.” The author seems to think it proves MacDonald is wrong on his larger point of authoritarianism. It does not. It only shows MacDonald shouldn’t have either used this point or taken it out of context.

MacDonald may not have a solid case with this one point, but neither does the author in his refutation of it.

No, just a recommendation; I suggest everyone read all the books and the related material, and make up his own mind.

Svigor, stop dodging the question: If one of the studies MacDonald used to prove Jews are hyperethnocentric actually found Jews tie WASP Anglicans and Unitarians for least ethnocentric, how is that not a lie?

What MacDonald gets wrong is this. He sees Jews involved in every revolution and subversive ideology, elaborating the finer points of anti-establishment theory and placed in high positions in every ideological vanguard.

He thinks it’s because they think up this stuff. He’s wrong. They haven’t thought up anything, ever. Not the Bible, not proletarian revolution, not philosophy, not science, none of it.

They are reared from birth to embed themselves in the small things of the society around them, to work their way into the system and help their fellows. Ideas? They hate ideas. Ideas give them nightmares. Rules? They hate rules.

These things gnaw at their feeling of personal and social security, perpetually. And what they hate and fear, they watch and manipulate. Result is to be a few steps ahead of the brain dead masses who have less to lose from social change.

It’s a survival reflex. They are utterly morally and intellectually passive, in a way impossible for a European goy to understand. They live in constant fear of what the next “crazy (goy) evil society will do to poor helpless and blameless Homo economicus” next.

And they really are blameless, in a sense. They lack self-defined collective moral agency in a deep perpetual sense. They adapt. To anything. That’s their secret.

If you want to change the Jews, change the world. They will ignore you until you set a new standard with proven results that they can profitably copy and adapt for themselves.

Unless of course he’s a pathological liar. But I’m sure you, Svigor, Ben Tillman, or that anonymous poster, can come up with a great explanation.

No, just a recommendation; I suggest everyone read all the books and the related material, and make up his own mind.

And, Reiner, about Kevin “Translator of Solzhenitsyn” MacDonald;

Why would he use a study where Jews tied Anglicans, and Unitarian WASPs on a measure of ethnocentrism for least ethnocentric religious group as proof Jews are hyperethnocentric?

Unless of course he’s a pathological liar. But I’m sure you, Svigor, Ben Tillman, or that anonymous poster, can come up with a great explanation.

Instead of looking at Jewish numbers in the first Sovnarkom (a relatively large and often ineffectual governing body, when real decisions were made by a handful of people throughout the Soviet system), why not look at the leaders of the Revolution?

Those Sovnarkom members pretty much held high ranks in the Revolutionary leadership. Rykov was a member of the Petrograd and Moscow Soviet.

And none other than Solzhenitsyn himself was of the opinion Alexander Shliapnikov – who was born into some sort of Eastern Christian sect known as “Old Believers” – served as the Revolution’s true leader, even more vital than Lenin.

Russian nationalists from Solzhenitsyn to Vlad Putin, he who enjoys the company of Jewish oligarchs, just aren’t meeting American anti-semites hopes.

But keep clinging to Kevin MacDonald and whispering to yourself there weren’t enough gentiles to cause Red October on their own despite the mountain of evidence to contrary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shlyapnikov

Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr (2002-08-14) [June 30, 1975, Washington, DC: AFL‐CIO], Words of Warning to the Western World, RU: Lib, retrieved 2014-02-04,

“Among the leadership, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, at the beginning of the Revolution, all were émigré intellectuals who had returned, after the uprisings had already broken out in Russia, in order to carry through the Communist Revolution. One of them was a genuine worker, a highly skilled lathe operator until the last day of his life. This was Alexander Shliapnikov. Who knows that name today? Precisely because he expressed the true interests of the workers within the Communist leadership. In the years before the Revolution it was Shliapnikov who ran the whole Communist Party in Russia – not Lenin, who was an émigré. In 1921, he headed the Workers’ Opposition which was charging the Communist leadership with betraying the workers’ interests, with crushing and oppressing the proletariat and transforming itself into a bureaucracy. Shliapnikov disappeared from sight. He was arrested somewhat later and since he firmly stood his ground he was shot in prison and his name is perhaps unknown to most people here today. But I remind you: before the Revolution the head of the Communist Party of Russia was Shliapnikov – not Lenin.”

Slate Magazine (blog) – 6 hours ago “Why Did This Famous Marxist Philosopher Plagiarize a White Supremacist Magazine?”

Instead of looking at Jewish numbers in the first Sovnarkom (a relatively large and often ineffectual governing body, when real decisions were made by a handful of people throughout the Soviet system), why not look at the leaders of the Revolution? The first Politburo (only in 1917 and lasted until the Revolution, assigned the task of organizing the revolution itself) consisted of top Bolsheviks, and had as its members the following (remember, these were the organizers of the revolution, or rather coup, no Politburo, no revolution in October): Bubnov (Russian), Zinoviev (Jewish), Kamenev (half-Jewish, half-Russian, with a Jewish wife), Lenin (quarter-Jewish, quarter-German, half-Kalmyk), Sokolnikov (Jewish), Stalin (Georgian), Trotsky (Jewish). Out of seven people, three were Jewish, one half-Jewish, one quarter-Jewish, and only one full Russian.

Clear proof Soviet Russia was Slav dominated from the beginning.

When you like a conclusion, one small thing immediately becomes “clear proof”. Government in Soviet systems meant little (Sovnarkom was the government), what meant everything was the party.

And how do you explain that after the death of Lenin, there were four contenders for the leadership, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin and Trotsky, two Jews, one half-Jew, and one Georgian? Even gentiles in the leadership were often unusual in that they socialized with Jews extensively and often had Jewish wives. For example Dzerzhinsky was Polish, but he had many Jewish friends and could even speak (and read and write) Yiddish – how many people had that in Czarist Russia? Molotov is sometimes described as an anti-Semite, while he had an ethnocentric Jewish wife (who broke in tears when meeting Golda Meyerson and saying to her “Ich bin e yiddishe tochter.”), Voroshilov’s wife was also Jewish (and although never showing a sign of Jewish ethnocentrism, after the founding of Israel amazed her family by telling them “Now we have a Motherland, too.”), as was Kalinin’s (and Kalinin once broke in tears when reading a description of a pogrom – never broke in tears when reading about the fate of the Russian peasantry during the revolution or collectivization), so even the not-so-Jewish generation after the Stalinist purges had some Jewish element to it. How many people had Jewish wives in Russia at any time? Even including Jewish men, the ratio cannot be more than maybe 3-4%… (Not to mention Kaganovich, probably the third or fourth more powerful person in the country during High Stalinism in the late 1930s.) But there were other non-Russians, like Stalin himself, or Beria (and before him Ordzhonikidze) and Mikoyan (an Armenian, but in the context of the Soviet internal power struggles they were considered to be part of the “Caucasian mafia”).

The USSR was not Slav dominated until the later Stalin years (like maybe after 1945 or even 1948), and until Stalin’s death the dictator was still a Georgian. Only under Khrushchev can we truly speak of a Slav domination. Yes, a lot of Slavs (most especially Russians) participated in it (at lower levels), but the leadership (which required education, and most educated Russians were non-Bolsheviks or even Whites, and in any event were considered “class enemy”) was usually non-Russian, especially (but not exclusively) Jewish.

Then why didn’t those Jews enroll in Orthodox Christianity in Czarist Russia, when that was what aspiring “good citizens” were expected to do?

Anonymous @2:48 pm,

MacDonald’s credibility isn’t looking good right now. What’s your excuse for this (reposted from the other thread on Zizek):

About that article referencing Silverman I’ve got good news…

I did some Googling for that paper. I wasn’t able to find more details on it until I found a dead link to another paper written by David Lieberman titled “Jews Will Be Jews: A Scientific Racialism for the 21st Century”. I’m pleased to let you know I was able to access the paper using WayBackMachine.

The topic of this one was MacDonald’s use of an important source to prove ethnocentrism. It seems a different paper (Altemeyer) was used by MacDonald to demonstrate Jews are more ethnocentric than gentile whites on the related variable of “Authoritarianism”.

The actual quote shows MacDonald lied: Except for Unitarian and Anglican WASPs, whom Jews tied, Jews scored LOWER on this proxy for ethnocentrism than white gentiles in a paper MacDonald quoted in support of his own argument.

Please explain how this isn’t a deliberate lie, and also explain why we should believe anything he’s written on immigration, ethnocentrism. Or any topic:

Jews Will Be Jews: A Scientific Racialism for the 21st Century

http://web.archive.org/web/20090411051702/http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

But the real distortion MacDonald commits against Altemeyer is his failure to acknowledge Altemeyer‟s findings for different religious groups as measured against the Right – Wing Authoritarianism Scale. If reflecting on the authoritarianism of White North Americans like himself in Separation and Its Discontents stirs MacDonald to warming reveries of hearth and home, turning his attention to Jewish authoritarianism in Culture of Critique sharpens his focus on all of the unappetizing features of right -wing authoritarianism that Altemeyer emphasizes.

Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups (Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews.59

This extended passage on religious orientation and authoritarianism accurately reports on Altemeyer‟s findings that orthodoxy correlates with high rates of authoritarianism among all religions. But MacDonald‟s argument, with its smooth seguesfrom his discussion of the conventional and submissive yet aggressive “ideal Jew” to Altemeyer‟s research on religion and authoritarianism, and from there to Rubinstein‟s 1996 assessment of authoritarianism among Jews compared only to other Jew, neatly fudges one massively in convenient detail: according to Altemeyer, Jews as a group consistently score lower on the RWA scale than do members of any other religious group.

Over the years, there have been consistent differences in the RWA Scale scores of students affiliated with different religions. Those with no affiliation (who are mostly agnostics and atheists, about 75% of whom in 1979 stated that they were raised in no religion whatsoever) scored significantly lower than all the others, while Jews also tended to score low. … Catholics and Protestants in turn scored higher than these groups. …The results described above seem to indicate that authoritarianism and religious variables mutually determine one another. In the first place, it seems clear that different religions produce different levels of authoritarianism in their membership. People raised in no religious system tend to be less authoritarian than those raised in Judaism or Christianity, Jews tend to be less authoritarian than Christians, and there are at least some reliable differences within Protestantism among Manitoba students.
60

58
Altemeyer, “Reducing Prejudice in Right
-
Wing Authoritarians,” 137.
59
MacDonald,
The Culture of
Critique
, 190.

Even worse, from MacDonald‟s perspective, was the richer data on religious affiliation , orthodoxy and authoritarianism presented by Altemeyer in Enemies of Freedom, a volume MacDonald also cites. Even within the set of High RWA “true believers” characteristic of all religions (but underrepresented among Jews by comparison with other religions), clear differences among the groups emerge.

[A]re “very accepting” subjects equally authoritarian in all religions? Or do different denominations (as argued earlier) produce different levels of authoritarianism even among the strongly committed? If we examine just those subjects who answered the (0-5) “still accept” question with either a “4” or a “5” (that is, they indicated they “nearly completely” or “completely” accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood), who do you think were the most authoritarian of all these “true believers”? Fundamentalists (185.1) and Mennonites (185.3) among the students, Mennonites (202.1) and Fundamentalists (208.5) among the parents. The (rarer) United Church members, Anglicans, and Jews who were just as accepting of their religions scored about 25 points lower. True-believing Catholics and Lutherans lay somewhere in between. 61

So not only are Jews among the least authoritarian of religious groups, according to Altemeyer highly religious Jews are among the least authoritarian of the highly religious. Yet in an awe-inspiring display of sheer gall (dare I say,„chutzpah‟?), MacDonald takes information Altemeyer has collected from studies of subjects explicitly identified as “White North Americans” and applies it willy-nilly to the Jews whom Altemeyer, working from actual data rather than his own „suppositions,‟ largely exempts from the discussion. The point is worth emphasizing: these highly ethnocentric, highly authoritarian, highly self-deceptive “people who are highly attracted to cohesive groups,” as MacDonald so guardedly puts it, whom MacDonaldadduces as evidence for the self-deceptive tendencies of Jewish “hyper-collectivism,” were in fact members of MacDonald‟s own ethnic group.

I can think of no other way to describe this conduct than as an act of deliberate fraud. None of this actual data on authoritarianism among Jews is good news for the theory of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy, with its emphasis on the inherently authoritarian “ideal Jew,” and, as should by now be quite unsurprising, none of it makes its way back to Kevin MacDonald‟s readers.

Richard Pipes points out that the mass enrolment of Jews in the party after the Revolution reflected their desire to be good citizens.

As pointed out before, only one member of the first Soviet Governing Council, Trotsky, has been verified as Jewish.

13 of the others following seem to be gentiles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovnarkom

Vladimir Lenin
Nikolai Gorbunov
Vladimir Milyutin
Nikolai Krylenko
Pavel Dybenko

Viktor Nogin
Ivan Teodorovich
Alexei Rykov
Georgy Oppokov
Alexander Shliapnikov

Jospeh Stalin
Alexandra Kollontai
Ivan Skvortsov-Stepanov

Two of them, Nikolai Glebov-Avilov and Anatoly Lunacharsky, might be Jewish.

Even if those two were Jews, over 80% of the Soviet leadership was gentile with Slavs and even two members who originate from Cossack families representing the Soviet high command. Clear proof Soviet Russia was Slav dominated from the beginning.

We can keep posting the same thing over and over until it’s been proven without a doubt that Jews are more tirelessly ethnocentric than any other race.

I’m delighted you prove Jews are ethnocentric.

Now, explain why:

1) If Jews are more ethnocentric than any other race, why do secular Jews outmarry at a rate of 71%?

2) And if Jews are politically liberal because of ethnocentrism, why are the most ethnocentric Jews, Orthodox and FSU immigrants, among the most politically conservative of all whites.

It seems the opposite – secular Jews are liberal because they aren’t ethnocentric enough.

But I’m sure you can easily explain this, yes?

Britain: fewer Jews than America, fewer non-white immigrants.

As was explained to you before Western Europe’s white percentage would be somewhere in the 70′s by now if they had been ~10% black at the end of WWII like we were. They also have proportionally fewer illegal immigrants because the Mediterranean is harder to cross than the Rio Grande.

Possibly he assumed that those mistresses were gentile.

Where did Irving say there was something disproportionate or unusual about the leadership keeping mistresses?

And that’s the only reference to leadership. Everything else is about Hungary generally.

But again, the larger question is whether he gets his sources wrong consistently.

Of course, anyone needing to make up their mind themselves should probably just read MacDonald directly.

Why not direct quotes from his original sources – after all MACDONALD selected them as evidence? If you’re have faith he’s honest then you should have nothing to fear. A review will completely exonerate him, won’t it?

So let’s see that documentation about ethnocentrism and immigration.

why did the US actively seek massive nonwhite immigration?

Ooo, I wonder what you’re implying.

As we will see, that’s not necessarily true regarding massive nonwhite immigration.

So your contention is America is responsible for every Western European nation’s immigration system? Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, all of them? As far as the cultural aspect goes, how did we do that when American pop culture really was pretty family oriented from the 1945-1960s when Europe started their worker programs?

For example Turkish immigration to Germany would probably never have happened without US involvement:

Well, it says we put “some pressure” on Germany to let Turks apply as guest workers but it’s not clear from what you presented it was decisive.

Other reasons mentioned were manpower shortages because of the war, a drop in East German immigration after the Berlin wall went up in 1961 and requests by Turkey to be included:

There were several reasons for signing those contracts. First of all during the 1950s Germany experienced a so-called Wirtschaftswunder or “economic miracle” and needed laborers.[3] The labour shortage was made more acute by the creation of the Berlin Wall in August 1961, which reduced the large-scale flow of East German immigration virtually to zero overnight. Besides this, the Federal Republic saw it as a form of developmental aid. It was hoped that the Gastarbeiter would learn useful skills in Germany, which could help them build their home countries after returning home.[4] However, Turkey pressured the Federal Republic to allow its citizens to become guest workers.

“Also you have to recognize that circumstances were often different, for example when France lost Algeria, it would have required strong political action to avert the influx of Algerians, which of course didn’t happen. However, in the US, it needed strong political action to even start the immigration, and it did happen. Explaining why somebody didn’t do something (out of stupidity, laziness, malice, something else, or some combination of these) is easier than explaining why somebody actively sought to do something: why did the US actively seek massive nonwhite immigration?”

France could have simply refused to accept the Algerians after the war. Additionally, Algerian, African, and Vietnamese immigrants were already in France before 1954:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_France#1945-1974

Right after the Second World War, immigration to France significantly increased. During the period of reconstruction, France lacked labor, and as a result, the French government was eager to recruit immigrants coming from all over Europe, Latin America, and Africa.

Although there was a presence of Vietnamese in France since the late 19th century (mostly students and workers), a wave of Vietnamese migrated to the country after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and the Geneva Accords, which granted Vietnam its independence from France in 1954.

*

This period also saw a significant wave of immigrants from Algeria. As the Algerian War started in 1954, there were already 200,000 Algerian immigrants in France.[8]

“Further, which countries you mean when you say “EU elites”?”

EU political elites come from all member states. The European Union governing bodies are a labyrinth of civil service agencies. But the Commission is probably the most powerful one. Its members come from all backgrounds. The EU parliament is more or less a powerless rubber stamp.

” From what I remember, Solzhenitsyn says that the bolshevik revolution itself was not a jewish mass movement at first. While there were Jews involved, most intellectual Jews were at that point more involved in various socialist and/or zionist movements. Once the bolsheviks took power, though, the mass of Jews quickly rallied to them with enthusiasm. Solzhenitsyn says that without the massive jewish support, the bolshevik revolution could have easily ended up stillborn.”

Richard Pipes points out that the mass enrolment of Jews in the party after the Revolution reflected their desire to be good citizens.

“Now that there’s reason to question his trustworthiness, it’s their obligation to provide evidence from source documents that MacDonald hasn’t been writing up falsehoods. “

“If he’s not lying then his sources will exonerate him, yes?”

The problem is that that citation provides no reason to question his trustworthiness. It backs up his point about the state of Hungary at the time. The citation stands. It does exonerate him. You have to read it to deliberately misunderstand to get to your position. Read this thread. Your need for this citation to “be false” says more about your position than MacDonald’s scholarship.

If MacDonald’s work is so full of falsehoods, please provide a list of these falsehoods. Since you seem to be an expert on MacDonald and there are so many, it should be easy. MacDonald has made his case. No you make yours, instead of saying “other academics” have made a case.

Of course, anyone needing to make up their mind themselves should probably just read MacDonald directly. Go to the source and not the commentators and all that.

A drop from 800,000 to perhaps less than 100,000 Jews who both survived and stayed in Hungary is a rather drastic fall.

It all depends on the borders. For example Hungary’s borders before 1938 and after 1945 were almost identical (three villages were given to Czechoslovakia), and within those borders roughly 450 thousand Jews lived before and during the Second World War. Roughly half of them (or maybe a bit more) were killed (mostly in 1944), but most of the survivors lived in Budapest, which meant that the majority of the Jews in Budapest survived. Probably half of them left the country 1945-48, but still maybe 100,000 were left.

Of course, Hungary grew larger after 1938, especially 1941-44, and the additional maybe 350,000 Jews were mostly killed – deportations started in the newly acquired (reacquired) territories, and they would have ended in Budapest, but Budapest (with its large, 200,000+ population) was mostly spared at the end for complicated reasons that need not be discussed here.

And this was the context of your original context:

What follows is MacDonald’s conclusion about what that meant in a world where Jews had disproportionate power.
But Irving didn’t mention Jews in the passage. And, anyway, in 1950 there were hardly any Jews left alive in Hungary. Side by side comparison shows it’s a lie.

So you stated that there were “hardly any Jews left alive” in Hungary, and so they couldn’t have had disproportionate power. (Or at least you stated that MacDonald’s statement that “Jews had disproportionate power” is “a lie”.) In fact, MacDonald didn’t use Irving to prove that Jews (at least, some Jews) had disproportionate power (he hardly needed Irving for that, that’s a well-known fact for all students of Hungarian history), he needed him to prove they had mistresses and that morals among the – predominantly gentile – Hungarian population broke down. Possibly he assumed that those mistresses were gentile. Evolutionary psychologists often mention things like that passim, like how medieval aristocrats had access to domestic workers, maidens who came from the peasantry. We don’t know how many of those were impregnated, and we know even less how many of those children survived (with all the medieval discrimination against bastards and single mothers), but evolutionary psychologists can’t help but notice (or infer) such things. That he mentioned it in the case of communist Hungary was hardly a lie on MacDonald’s part. Could be a tendentious statement, but nothing more.

I will read that Mehler paper, and also probably Neuringer’s book. Don’t expect me to do that while this thread is still alive.

Another point. Mearsheimer and Walt were accused of distorting their sources, too. I read the books by Benny Morris that they referenced. Contrary to what Benny Morris stated (namely, that his books didn’t support M&W’s thesis, and that they distorted the content of his books), actually the books of Benny Morris did support M&W’s thesis, and they didn’t distort anything. But we’ll see this time.

And what about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_reception

Someone who thinks Wikipedia is Pravda. How touching.

Part of the reason is to meet halfway some of the demands of the socialism and blunt the attractions of the communist countries. Europe never demonized communism ( like US) and always maintained a robust trade union which kept the Labor Part in UK and the various different versions of the labor party in Europe.
US managed to conflate all new ideas – gay marriage,abortion, birth control ,health care,universal education,and war against drugs – as expression of communism ,godlessness of communism and stealth attacks on US values. No one challenged . For challenging was ridiculed. New Deal or breaking of monopoly by Tedy Roosevelt would have earned same negative attention if communism were deemed a new enemy back in those days.

Why should I trust you and his partisans this isn’t the tip of the iceberg?

You’re a loyal Jew. We know there’s no set of circumstances that would bring you to “trust” MacDonald. Duh.

I’m saying America can’t be the *cause* behind Europe’s liberalism because Europe’s elite has consistently been more liberal than America’s. Europe got to gay marriage before us, opened their borders to non-whites in the 1950s before we did, setup the anti-nationalist Euro currency and EU project before we could do the same with the proposed “Amero” currency, etc. And Europe’s elite environment is better than 90% gentile.

If America were the causal source of Europe’s leftism, one would expect Western Europe’s elite to be relatively more conservative than ours.

Britain: fewer Jews than America, fewer non-white immigrants. Germany: same. Norway: same. Sweden: same. Finland: same. Denmark: same. Spain: same. Belgium: same. Work your way westward, same, same same. So, there really is something to the fewer Jews = less demographic disaster.

Do you think Hillary suddenly got more liberal today than she was a decade ago (when she publicly opposed gay marriage) but that she is still religious and reads the Bible on a daily basis (as opposed to more liberal European elites who are often openly atheistic), or do you think that it would be reasonable to think that the American public is more religious (and has been so prior to the rise of liberalism as observed by Tocqueville more than a century and a half ago) than the European public and thus the elites were more circumspect in bringing the full force of some parts of their agenda to bear? As we will see, that’s not necessarily true regarding massive nonwhite immigration.

For example Turkish immigration to Germany would probably never have happened without US involvement:

Theodor Blank, Secretary of State for Employment, was opposed to such agreements. He held the opinion that the cultural gap between Germany and Turkey would be too big and also held the opinion that Germany needed no more labourers, because there were enough unemployed people living in the poorer regions of Germany, who could fill these vacancies. The United States, however, put some political pressure on Germany, wanting to stabilize and create goodwill from a potential ally. The German Department of Foreign Affairs carried on the negotiations after this and in 1961 an agreement was reached.[5][5]

Also you have to recognize that circumstances were often different, for example when France lost Algeria, it would have required strong political action to avert the influx of Algerians, which of course didn’t happen. However, in the US, it needed strong political action to even start the immigration, and it did happen. Explaining why somebody didn’t do something (out of stupidity, laziness, malice, something else, or some combination of these) is easier than explaining why somebody actively sought to do something: why did the US actively seek massive nonwhite immigration?

Further, which countries you mean when you say “EU elites”? Spain was under the rule of Franco until relatively recently. Germany – we just saw it wasn’t quite liberal until the generations grew up under the education plan of the American occupiers, whose ethnicity was often… oops. Italy’s elites weren’t quite liberal for a long time. Sweden (!) had no nonwhite immigration until the 1980s. Etc.

[…] (Plagiarism exposed, tormented by Steve Sailer, publicly humiliated in Newsweek and The American Spectator, ‘apologizes‘ by […]

Yes he said and told Graham not to air it. He was afraid . He knew the power . He also obeyed the orders when it came . He supplied Israel with gadgets and latest toys that saved Israel in 1973 war .
This raises some hope that those bought and paid congressmen and senators also may feel the same.

So just to clarify, your point of view is that there has been no huge American cultural influence in Europe since WWII (and especially no American influence before 1945), and that the fact that the possible venues of that – according to you, nonexistant – influence (both in popular culture, i.e. Hollywood

I’m saying America can’t be the *cause* behind Europe’s liberalism because Europe’s elite has consistently been more liberal than America’s. Europe got to gay marriage before us, opened their borders to non-whites in the 1950s before we did, setup the anti-nationalist Euro currency and EU project before we could do the same with the proposed “Amero” currency, etc. And Europe’s elite environment is better than 90% gentile.

If America were the causal source of Europe’s leftism, one would expect Western Europe’s elite to be relatively more conservative than ours.

Is the point MacDonald made look to be more right or wrong based on all we know, excluding anything either MacDonald or Irving has ever written?

It’s the possibility he does this often, not one passage, that requires you to directly quote his source documents. If he’s not lying then his sources will exonerate him, yes?

And what about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_reception

MacDonald has particularly been accused by other academics of academic fraud, saying that he has promoted anti-Semitic propaganda under the guise of what he says is a legitimate and academic search for truth.[27] He has also been accused of misrepresenting the sources he uses in that regard. Fenris State University professor Dr. Barry Mehler cited for example a quote from a 1969 dissertation by Sheldon Morris Neuringer titled American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953 where MacDonald surmised that when Neuringer noted Jewish opposition in 1921 and 1924 to the anti-immigration legislation at the time was due more to it having the “taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism” as opposed to how it would limit Jewish immigration, MacDonald wrote, “…Jewish opposition to the 1921 and 1924 legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America should be dominated by individuals with northern and western European ancestry.” “It seems to me Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this case and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the literature might have a judgment on MacDonald’s use of the historical data,” Mehler wrote, citing other examples.[28]

You have already made false statements about there not being Jews in Hungary after 1945.

I said hardly any. A drop from 800,000 to perhaps less than 100,000 Jews who both survived and stayed in Hungary is a rather drastic fall.

Now you want me to read a book by one of MacDonald’s sources only to disprove your statement that MacDonald distorts him?

If his honesty is now in question then there could be many more situations where he twists the truth. Again, if this passage were the only instance of him, dubiously, misusing a citatation it wouldn’t necessarily discredit everything he’s written.

But there continue to be cases popup where his sources don’t support his arguments. There’s Solzhenitsyn, pre-WWII Jewish immigration policy, Jewish ethnocentrism when seculars outmarry at 71%, causing the Holodomor.

Why should I trust you and his partisans this isn’t the tip of the iceberg?

I’m not an academic whose job it would be to read MacDonald’s sources

I provided you with evidence he might be lying in order to rebut your arguments, arguments which depend on his work’s academic integrity. Antisemites started this debate by presenting MacDonald’s word as Gospel. Now that there’s reason to question his trustworthiness, it’s their obligation to provide evidence from source documents that MacDonald hasn’t been writing up falsehoods.

What do his sources for Jewish ethnocentrism actually say? Do Neuringer’s passages support the his contention pre-WWII Jews wanted non-white immigration even then (not just immigration from Europe other than the Northwest – Poles, Greeks, Italians and other Euro migrants lobbied for the same thing).

reiner Tor says: July 12, 2014 at 7:32 pm

Jewish Defense League lawyers now move to strike reiner Tor’s comments from the record…

“After rereading, by ‘funkies’ Irving meant functionaries, not flunkies.”

I’m confused by this statement. I searched the entire thread and can’t find any reference to flunkies. No one suggested the word meant flunkies. As someone pointed out, funkies was apparently the term for communist party functionaries. As has also been pointed out, the Hungarian government during the period being discussed was communist and numerically dominated at the very top, at least, by Jews.

“Still looks like a blatant lie about what Irving wrote even with ‘funkies’ referencing politicians.”

I can’t see it that way, in particular if you read all the context material. It seems more like a blatant claim on your part. Irving said girls were paid to have abortions? Check. Irving said almost all the “functionaries” had mistresses? Check. Etc..

If MacDonald had left out the Irving citation, would it have changed his point or its potential validity? I’m glad he left it in, it seems to add to the historical color and provides a sense for the feel of things. It probably also gets one to a book that has another good set of references on the period. (And from what I see here, it is a valid reference in a survey work. Much better to put the reference here, adjacent to the related materiel, than to bury it in some never-read bibliography.)

This objection seems like a desperate attempt to find anything to keep throwing up, without trying to honestly understand what is being said. More like trying actively to misunderstand. Forget MacDonald and Irving. Is the point MacDonald made look to be more right or wrong based on all we know, excluding anything either MacDonald or Irving has ever written?

Is concentrating on this one particular citation a way to avoid trying to see the bigger picture or a way to distract us from that?

OK. So just to clarify, your point of view is that there has been no huge American cultural influence in Europe since WWII (and especially no American influence before 1945), and that the fact that the possible venues of that – according to you, nonexistant – influence (both in popular culture, i.e. Hollywood movies and popular music, and academia, i.e. nurturist views spread by people like Ashley Montagu) had a disproportionate Jewish presence, because of course it would have all been the same with gentiles.

Look, I know about Kropotkin and anarchism and the entirely gentile project of the French Revolution, but MacDonald never stated Jews were the only bad influence. He states that without Jews the situation would not nearly be as bad, and that they were a necessary but not sufficient influence for a lot of things.

in Britain’s case British Jews lean conservative

Which British Jews? Currently the Labor Party has a Jewish leader. Oh, I guess you mean Lord Feldman, the co-chairman of the Conservative Party. Or Grant Shapps, the other co-chairman. But of course Jewish influence is negligible in Britain, so it doesn’t matter much.

You made a statement (MacDonald is a liar), and made a point regarding MacDonald’s two sentences about “sexual and reproductive domination” by “Jewish males”. You say it cannot be supported by Irving, and that thus MacDonald is a proven liar.

However, it turns out that the following can be established:

1) Irving did state that communist functionaries had unrestricted access to mistresses.
2) Irving did state that morals were broken in Hungary, and that it was at least partly deliberate.
3) Communist functionaries were predominantly Jewish at the highest levels. (I would be highly surprised if Irving didn’t state that clearly in his book, but that is a well-known fact, so I’m not sure MacDonald ever needed a source for that. He used Irving to prove the mistress thingy and the breakdown of morals.)

Yes, of course the mistresses could have been Jewish as well, but obviously the population of Hungary and thus probably the population of pretty girls in Hungary was also predominantly gentile. Although there are no doubt many pretty Jewish girls, from what I have seen thus far, it appears to me that gentile white girls are on average prettier than Jewish girls, so the ratio may be even more skewed than simple population statistics (98% gentile) would suggest. So I would propose there is a negligible chance that those mistresses were Jewish. But you have every right to believe in implausible explanations. However, why call MacDonald a liar simply because he – possibly going out on a limb – believed the more plausible thing, namely that those mistresses were gentile, even if Irving never stated that, and even if that could no longer be established.

I agree with you that MacDonald’s two sentences were a bit tendentious, but not that they constitute a deliberate lie. At best they constitute a somewhat tendentious distortion, which could be found in the works of many other academics. Also it’s just a minor point regarding his greater point about Hungary. I cannot see how his two sentences could discredit his whole trilogy. I also cannot see how this sentence even affects his point about Hungary, namely that the country was dominated by Jews living luxurious lifestyles.

Now you want me to read a book by one of MacDonald’s sources only to disprove your statement that MacDonald distorts him? You have already made false statements about there not being Jews in Hungary after 1945. Why bother proving another of your statements false?

I’m not an academic whose job it would be to read MacDonald’s sources (if I didn’t agree with him) and criticize him academically.

Anti-semites want an open, factual debate about Jews instead of being shut down by the ADL, well here’s your chance. Provide us with direct quotes from his own documentation about immigration so we can see how minor, or not, his creative license has been.

And then, we can have another open, factual debate. And another, and another, and another, and another. We can keep posting the same thing over and over until it’s been proven without a doubt that Jews are more tirelessly ethnocentric than any other race.

Yay!

I would love to read a detailed treatment of MacDonald’s work with similar (or better) points to those you raised.

Thedebate over whether Kevin MacDonald is a liar or a victim of hasty editing can be settled by comparing his sources directly with his own words. Perhaps these examples are isolated cases of bending the truth, but it’s also possible he lies extensively.

Where are direct quotes from his sources for supposed Jewish ethnocentrism?

You want us to believe Jews wanted non-white immigration even before WWII? Fine, then how does Neuringer’s thesis, American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953, compare to MacDonald’s use of the work to, supposedly, show Jews wanted non-white immigration as far back as the 19th century? Provide direct quotes from Neuringer.

Anti-semites want an open, factual debate about Jews instead of being shut down by the ADL, well here’s your chance. Provide us with direct quotes from his own documentation about immigration so we can see how minor, or not, his creative license has been.

Similarly your assertion that “Engels would have made similar theories without Marx” might not be true. I mean, it could of course be true, but how do you know it?

There are many examples of Marxist-like ideas existing in other socialist movements. Dialectical materialism was developed by the ethnic German revolutionary, Joseph Dietzgen independently of Marx and Engels.

More importantly, there were multiple other violent revolutionary ideologies floating around which would have had much the same results, if implemented, as Communism. Anarchism was founded by Kropotkin and Bakunin.

How do you know Hollywood would have turned into the BBC?

Because the BBC and the rest of the continent’s media and political elite is liberal despite there being proportionally fewer Jews (more than 90% of Europe’s elite is gentile). If liberalism continues to advance across the West where Jewish influence is minimal, then it’s proof Jews aren’t a causal factor.

Since the most intelligent people in the world are affected by the most influential universities (which happen to be located in the US), this will almost certainly mean that intelligent people (at least those who are not into genetics research) will be affected by the leftist zeitgeist.

The ideological foundations of the European Union were established after WWI, not WWII, when Europe still had universities as good or better than America. The EU’s founders like Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann were usually gentile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union#Pre-1945:_Idea_of_Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet

You cannot know how the BBC would look like without the Boasian victory.

Boas had little influence over Europe. Nor was he an extreme blank slatist like contemporary Behaviorist psychologists under John B Watson. What brought down the British Eugenics Society (and hereditarianism in the US as well) were the Nazis.

According to In the Name of Eugenics by Daniel J. Kevles, legislation promoted by the British Eugenics Society was linked by their opponents to Nazi Germany even before WWII started (they unsuccessfully attempted to distance themselves from Hitler by pointing out the BES had a number of Jewish members):

Well before Nuremberg, the reports from Germany had joined with the scientific, the political, and the religious opposition to turn the tide against eugenic sterlization. In Britain, the move to legalize voluntary sterilization failed utterly and was dead as a legislative issue by 1939. (pg 169)

http://books.google.nl/books?id=8esnhRxBomMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:F6dgGBPEZCQC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UGvBU5SnCoajPZfngagO&redir_esc=y

Hereditarianism became politically toxic because of Hitler, not because science ever gave much support to the nurturist case. If Boasian anthro (which didn’t become extreme nurturist until after Boas’ death), Gould, and Lewontin’s fallacy had never existed at all, eugenics and race science would still be politically DOA.

This is another example of Jewish participation not being causal (because British Eugenics had Jewish backing).

Oh, and of course it’s not like there are no Jews at the BBC.

There are proportionally fewer Jews in British and Western Euro media than America. And in Britain’s case British Jews lean conservative. What causal influence Jews have over Britain is, at worst, a political wash.

some of the leftist lefties are worried about zizek:

Is Slavoj Zizek a US propaganda psyop?

(~_^)

Most of the prominent funkies kept mistresses,
I assume in the original this read “prominent functionaries”.

After rereading, by ‘funkies’ Irving meant functionaries, not flunkies.

Prominent functionaries implies ranking party officials, not, as you write, “…clearly talking about Hungarian society in general, not Jews or even ranking party officials…” Not so if Irving wrote “prominent functionaries”, right?

But that’s the only sentence to Hungarian leadership.

And even from that one reference one can’t, honestly anyway, derive from the citation:

1) Whether the mistresses were ethnically gentile Hungarian or Jewish
2) If the number of mistresses was unusual or out of the ordinary

Everything else refers to Hungarian society generally:

Sexual morality became lax. While during the first years of the
Communist rule standards had been puritan, these soon
changed.

A car industry worker said: “About eighty or ninety per
cent of the women in the factory were available.” The
birthrate slumped and had to be promoted by unusual means.

Simultaneously, prostitution increased. A staggering proportion of
Hungarian males questioned in confidence by American
sociologists admitted losing their virginity to prostitutes. [32.
CUOHP, hospital official.] “

Still looks like a blatant lie about what Irving wrote even with ‘funkies’ referencing politicians.

Interesting debate and comments. IMO all this chatter about Jews is much ado about not too much. I do not find Jews and Jewish issues interesting. But, one must admit, they have a talent for “inserting themselves” into controversies and perhaps into pretty gentile mistresses.

Anyway, speaking of pretty gentiles, my daughter had a study abroad in about 2009 and my wife visited her. They toured about, and even visited a synagogue, where the tour guide told my wife that things have changed for the worse, that under the good old communist regime, “they protected us.” The guide made it clear that the Jews in power looked out for them and financially supported them, and in addition to the synagogue their apartments were paid for. This of course is merely an anecdote and my wife may be lying and spreading vile anti-Semitic canards…

Some couple hundred thousand Jews in a small country like Hungary is a substantial number.

Of the four, two were Jewish, one half-Jewish, and one Georgian. To assert that “it would have been all the same without Jews” needs some proof,

Of the sixteen members of the first Soviet Council, the Sovnarkaom, only Trotsky’s ethnic background has been established as Jewish.

Most of the rest have gentile Slavic or other gentile names, established gentile ethnic backgrounds or gentile appearances. This includes 2 ex-Cossacks, Alexandra Kollontai and Pavel Dybenko.

The following seem to be gentiles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovnarkom

Vladimir Lenin
Nikolai Gorbunov
Vladimir Milyutin
Nikolai Krylenko
Pavel Dybenko

Viktor Nogin
Ivan Teodorovich
Alexei Rykov
Georgy Oppokov
Alexander Shliapnikov

Jospeh Stalin
Alexandra Kollontai
Ivan Skvortsov-Stepanov

I’m less certain about the background of Nikolai Glebov-Avilov and Anatoly Lunacharsky. Glebov-Avilov I lean towards his being a Slav because of last name. Lunacharsky might be Jewish, but his father’s last name, Antonov, is usually Slavic.

The most important communist politicians circa 1950 in Hungary:

1) Mátyás Rákosi (born Mátyás Rosenfeld) (first secretary of the party, prime minister, “Stalin’s best Hungarian pupil”)
2) Ernő Gerő (born Ernő Singer) (second in command after Rákosi, in 1956 shortly before the revolution he became Rákosi’s successor, only to be swept away by the revolution)
3) Mihály Farkas (born to a single mother called Janka Lőwy, a Jewish domestic worker, father unknown) (third in command, minister of defense)
4) József Révai (born József Lederer) (responsible for cultural policies and ideology)

These four were all Jewish (although Farkas could be genetically only half-Jewish, nobody knows), and they were called the “coach-and-four”, but the first three (called the “troika”) didn’t trust Révai much, so they excluded him from the “Defense Committee”, which – in preparation of a possible Third World War during the later years of Stalin’s life – effective became the highest government organ, even the secret police, the ÁVH was directly subordinated to it, as well as the People’s Army.

Speaking of the secret police, its leader was Gábor Péter (born Benjámin Eisenberger), also Jewish, just as most of its officers.

I could name other lower ranking Jewish politicians (like Zoltán Vas), but at the lower levels there were many gentiles as well. It should be noted that most gentiles in the communist party had no or very little education, so even though at the lower level Jews were a minority, they were a very important minority.

This still doesn’t mean that the majority of Jews supported the communist system, but it does mean that the regime was led predominantly by Jews. Jewish dominance decreased after 1952, when Stalin started to demand from Rákosi and his ilk that they start “uncovering” “Zionist conspiracies” – so they sacrificed Farkas (arrested) and Révai (demoted) and also Péter (arrested), but then Stalin died, and Beria asked Rákosi why there weren’t more Hungarians and not Jews in the leading positions. So Imre Nagy was promoted to be prime minister (Rákosi kept the party until 1956), but because Beria was also executed shortly thereafter, a lengthy power struggle started until the revolution, which changed everything. After 1956, János Kádár (a gentile) became the highest leader. There were still some Jews: after 1956, the second in command, György Marosán was Jewish, but he was demoted after he fell out with Kádár in 1962; György Aczél, another Jew, responsible for cultural policies, remained in Kádár’s closest circle, in fact, he was one of Kádár’s closest personal friends. But in general the number of Jews decreased in the highest positions. By the time the Soviet troops started to withdraw, the system was led by gentiles only.

Anne Applebaum is married to Poland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Radosław Sikorski, who tells Britain that we must continue to let Poles in Britain claim British benefits for their children in Poland. She tweeted this study by an ‘economist’ with the singularly inappropriate name of Joakim Ruist : “The lifting of transitional access restrictions for Romanian and Bulgarian workers is a hotly debated topic in the EU with big implications for public finances in destination countries. This column presents analysis of immigrants in Sweden, which never imposed access restrictions when these two countries joined the EU. Romanian and Bulgarian migrants to Sweden under this unrestricted regime make a sizeable positive contribution to Swedish public finances. Contributions can be expected to be even larger in the UK and Ireland”

[…] Steve Sailer July 12, 2014 […]

The most relevant contribution of Kevin Macdonald is opening the mind of the non Jewish irrespective of color or religion or geography to the reality that the experiences of Egyptian,Cannanites,Moorish Spain , Weimer Republic, Germany,Poland!Russia and now US are bound by common thread of the prophetic vision of the gentile world as written down in Old Testament – a world where poor Jewish sojourner came empty hand to a rich land and left it in sorry state while enriching self and his tribal members by the mercy of God who promised them no great afterlife but multiplication and enrichment and dominance on this gentile unclean world from whom they ,the Jewish should stay separate.
This is what worries the Zionist.

The+Undiscovered+Jew

Solzhenystin did point to the fact that Jewish were over represented in the movement leading to the revolution and death of Czar .he also pointed out the powerful position the Jews enjoyed in the post revolution political ,administrative,and security apparatuses . The problem was not their presence but their collective mindset,ethnic loyalty,ethnic promotion and the effort for the destruction of non Jewish identities . This was also mentioned with emphasis on the participation of the Jewish elite in merciless destruction of the Christian foundation of Russia and attempts to preserve and make flourish Jewish identities, by the author of the Jewish Century.

“Actually I’m not even sure if the majority of Jews had anything to do with the communist system. Many doubtless resented the fact that they lost their properties, for example. MacDonald also never states that the majority of them supported the communist government.”

I think I now see where some confusion on this thread may come from.

The following quote, which is important to understand the context of what MacDonald is talking about in the extract someone posted, is not from MacDonald or Irving. It is from the Wikipedia:

“People of Jewish origin dominated the post-war Communist regime until 1952-53 when many were removed in a series of purges. During its first years, the regime’s top membership and secret police were almost entirely Jewish, albeit naturally anti-religious.”

This isn’t a claim by Kevin MacDonald and about which he might be lying. This isn’t something David Irving wrote and about which he might be mistaken.

This is a sentence from the wikipedia article “History of the Jews in Hungary”, in the section “Communist rule”.

The full link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary#Communist_rule.

So whether all the Jews in Hungary had been killed, all the Jews had left, whether Jews had nothing!, nothing!, to do with Communism, whether Russian Jews had anything to do with Communism, none of that matters.

If the wikipedia sentence is true, which should be straight-forward to verify, there was a post-WWII communist government in Hungary, dominated by Jews, from roughly the end of the war through to 1952-1953. As “dominated” is subjective, it would be interesting to know the specifics of who made up this government, etc..

MacDonald doesn’t appear to be making the claim for this government existing (I’ve only read what is in the extract, but it seems pretty self-contained). He is writing as if he assumes that any knowledgeable person reading about the history of this time will know that this Jewish-dominated government existed. He takes it as a fact.

The fact that “…the regime’s top membership and secret police were almost entirely Jewish” makes it unlikely that Jews had nothing to do with it and that all Jews involved were just innocent victims of events. The truth sounds a lot more complex.

For this claim, the wikipedia article cites “Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the Left (1996) page 89.”

By the way, the wikipedia article notes that “Jews were on both sides of the 1956 uprising”. This might track with that line in the US that “not all Jews were communists, but most communists were Jews.”

Slavoj Zizek during the Arab spring:

“The Egyptians get democracy. They got it. Much better than the anti-immigrant parties in the West.”

That’s the problem with being so prolific. You make so many disparate arguments that the ones you end up getting wrong get lost.

György Aczél, not Tamás. And yes, Irving’s book has a bad reputation in Hungary (except with the radical nationalists), because he is accused of having done the bidding of the Kádár regime, which sought to prove that the 1956 uprising was an anti-Semitic pogrom.

Congrats again Steve,

http://www.newsweek.com/did-marxist-philosophy-superstar-slavoj-zizek-plagiarize-white-nationalist-journal-258433

You’re on roll.

The story has made Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/did-marxist-philosophy-superstar-slavoj-zizek-plagiarize-white-nationalist-journal-258433

Slavoj Zizek is to intellectualism what Lars von Trier is to art cinema.

A phony baloner.

Spectator book review “There is a black story involved, just the same: their role in the Communist takeover between 1945 and 1948. Anne Applebaum does not evade this question, nasty as it is: the four leading figures were Jews, chief among them, Mátyás Rákosi. Their children sometimes became dissidents, and in the later Seventies this led to an extraordinary business. The then (Jewish) cultural boss, Tamás Aczél, sought to discredit them, and allowed David Irving of all people into the archives to study the phenomenon of anti-Semitism in the Revolution of 1956. The resulting book, Uprising, said divisive things”

The Hornbeck review of Culture of Critique was on a (now gone) reviews page of Kevin MacDonald’s personal website, as I recall he praised Hornbeck’s review very highly.

In Hungarian it would be funkci, roughly pronounced as foonk-tsee, but with both syllables short.

Funkies is the term used by Irving in ‘Uprising!’ It’s his version of the Hungarian slang for Communist functionaries.

Actually I’m not even sure if the majority of Jews had anything to do with the communist system. Many doubtless resented the fact that they lost their properties, for example. MacDonald also never states that the majority of them supported the communist government.

But there were enough Jews to fill the highest echelons of the party and the government (and often even the rank and file of the secret police) and still most of them had very little to do with the government.

No Jews in Hungary after 1945. Ha! Ha! Ha! Just the Communist government and the secret police.

To assert that “it would have been all the same without Jews”

According to the Jewish Defense Team, anything Jews are assigned blame for has never depended upon Jews. Likewise, according to JDT, everything Jews are assigned credit for has always depended wholly upon Jews.

“Examples of leftism advancing with minimal Jewish contribution include modern Sweden…”

Funny how there was little sign of leftism in Sweden until the democratic-Communist victory of 1945:

http://conswede.blogspot.com/2008/07/social-paradigms-shift-eg-our-view-on.html

…To illustrate what I talk about. Louis Armstrong visited Sweden in 1933. In all the news papers he was describe as something monkey-like let loose from the jungle. All across the line! And in the reviews by the most serious music critics.

Who would have imagined in 1933, that twelve years later Western Europe would undergo an America-led cultural revolution which would lead to the common belief that there are no differences between races?

Translation of two of the quotes:

Knut Bäck in Göteborgs-Posten, November 1933:
“This world is strange… No protests are raised against how the jungle is let loose into the society. Armstrong and his band are allowed to freely wreak destruction.”

Sten Broman in Sydsvenskan, November 1933:
“Dare I say that he at times had something monkey-like about him and sometimes reminded of, according to our perceptions, a mentally disturbed person, when he pouted with his mouth or gaped it to its widest open and roared like a hoarse animal from a primeval forest.”

The third quote compares the concert with a natural disaster, and Armstrong’s trumpet with a hell machine. The only good thing coming out of it, he says, is that it solves to old dispute of whether monkeys have a language.

This is what Europe looked like, up until 1945. And since some people will live under the misconception that this was a phenomenon of the ’30s, I here provide a quote from the Swedish Encyclopedia, Nordisk Familjebok, the 1876-1899 edition (here and here).

“Psychologically the negro can be said be on the level of a child, with vivid fantasy, lack of endurance, … can be said to lack morality rather than being immoral … etc.”

Even though the point here has been to illustrate how social paradigms can shift completely in short time (and this is just one out of numerous examples), let me add how up until 1945 all the focus was put on the differences between races, and after that all the focus has been put on what is equal (while ignoring differences)

Look, everybody’s got their opinions on the actual topic of the guy’s discussion. I sometimes think Steve doesn’t even care about Jews but keeps bringing it up to increase his comment count. The point is, you caught a big leftie plagiarizing. He’s a Marxist who plagiarized a white-nationalist website, for crying out loud. You’ve proven that he 1. not only plagiarized, which is bad even in an alternate universe where academia hasn’t been taken over by lefties but 2. did it from a source good academic lefties aren’t even supposed to know exists.

I mean, really, whatever you think of universalism, the Cathedral, the Comintern, or the gold standard, he’s a plagiarist. That’s wrong.

80% of the early revolutionary leadership was gentile.

That depends on how you define “early revolutionary leadership”. For example at the time Lenin died, there were four serious contestants to be his successor: Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev. Of the four, two were Jewish, one half-Jewish, and one Georgian. To assert that “it would have been all the same without Jews” needs some proof, because it’s not quite obvious. Similarly your assertion that “Engels would have made similar theories without Marx” might not be true. I mean, it could of course be true, but how do you know it?

Even in examples like Hollywood it’s doubtful Hollywood would be different politically were the execs overwhelmingly gentile. There might be marginal differences, less emphasis on the Holocaust and more documentaries about Congo genocide, etc. But nothing substantively would be different politically, unless you think turning the movie industry into the BBC is an ideological victory.

How do you know Hollywood would have turned into the BBC?

Since the most intelligent people in the world are affected by the most influential universities (which happen to be located in the US), this will almost certainly mean that intelligent people (at least those who are not into genetics research) will be affected by the leftist zeitgeist. You cannot know how the BBC would look like without the Boasian victory. Oh, and of course it’s not like there are no Jews at the BBC.

Look, it so happens that although there were also many gentiles in leftism, somehow Jews were highly disproportionately represented in both Marxism and cultural Marxism. To assert that it would have been the same without them is just that – an assertion. At best you can say that this is not totally proven, and needs further studies, and then I would probably even agree with you.

And for your information, there are still eighty to one hundred thousand Jews in Hungary, and yes, the Communist Party 1945-56 was dominated by them (the four most important leaders were all Jews: Rákosi-Gerő-Farkas-Révai), and even 1956-62, when the party was already dominated by Hungarian gentiles, the second-in-command (György Marosán) still happened to be Jewish, and into the 1980s there was still at least one highly influential Jewish politician at the very highest echelons of party leadership (György Aczél), so you cannot say that this 1% minority was underrepresented in the top leadership even after the party was no longer dominated by them.

But the “access to gentile females” point is minor, of course commie leaders had luxurious lifestyles, they probably all had mistresses, just like in the USSR or elsewhere, the mistresses are more likely than not to have been gentile, and in any event it’s just a small point regarding communist rule in Hungary… so what is your point?

Uh, I’m not too versed in higher-ed sorcery & guild initiation protocols but wouldn’t the John D. Caputo/Derrida mix-up basically be sufficient? To prove Zzyzx’s source, that is. It’s like Hillary getting asked her favorite authors and then naming the Amazon fiction bestseller list in alphabetical order.

What is it about the Jews – some immoral something or other always seems to be near, circling around them? Trouble is always lapping at their door.

This has been going on for millennia – what gives? They deny that it is them – but we all have to wonder. What is the problem with the Jews?

First, “Many of those survivors fled Hungary for an Anglo nation or Israel after the war.”

Yes, if the Wikipedia article on the Jews in Hungary is accurate, out of probably around a quarter million, “Between 1945 and 1949, 40,000-50,000 Jews left Hungary for Israel(30,000-35,000) and Western countries(15,000-20,000).” So a fairly cautious estimate would be that roughly a fifth of the Jews left Hungary.

Second, about the citation:

“The text is clearly talking about Hungarian society in general, not Jews or even ranking party officials as MacDonald implied.

In fact, in context it’s clear Irving was talking about the sex habits of ordinary Hungarian such as factory and health workers, as well as surveys of the overall Hungarian population:”

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the extract of the Irving article you quoted says:

Most of the prominent funkies kept mistresses,

I assume in the original this read “prominent functionaries”. Can someone who has access to a physical copy check? A quick google finds the extract was obtained from what looks like OCR’d text at h-net.msu.edu. (It has the same typo. Of course, maybe funkies is an obscure technical term of art.)

Prominent functionaries implies ranking party officials, not, as you write, “…clearly talking about Hungarian society in general, not Jews or even ranking party officials…” Not so if Irving wrote “prominent functionaries”, right?

Put that together with the MacDonald extract that you quote:

“Not only were Jewish Communist Party functionaries and economic managers economically dominant, they also appear to have had fairly unrestricted access to gentile females working under them—partly as a result of the poverty to which the vast majority of the population had descended, and partly because of specific government policies designed to undermine traditional sexual mores…”

MacDonald clearly spelled out Jewish Communist Party functionaries. So MacDonald is talking about functionaries and now that I see that OCR-typo, it appears that Irving was in that lead sentence talking about functionaries as well.

Connect this to:

“People of Jewish origin dominated the post-war Communist regime until 1952-53 when many were removed in a series of purges.”

Do you see the pattern that connects what he is saying?

And relying on MacDonald’s work given his history of lying puts your debate points on very weak factual grounds.

And yet you simply assert that he is lying without providing any support for the assertion …

1) Why should believe this is an isolated case? How do you know he doesn’t twist sources out of context consistently?

True. Jews don’t like him, so we should assume he’s guilty until proven innocent.

Even Mehler doesn’t say he can say for certain that MacDonald was misrepresenting his source. He considers it questionable and calls for someone else to look into it.

1) Why should believe this is an isolated case? How do you know he doesn’t twist sources out of context consistently?

2) The thesis of his immigration chapter is Jews were the first to want non-white immigrants outside Europe from around the globe; everyone else was only concerned about their own ethnic group, e.g. Irish wanted more Irish immigrants, Italians wanted Italians.

But the actual quote suggests opposition to 1924 act was motivated by how it would be perceived to affect Jews, not Somali refugees.

I don’t see any reason given his and his supporter’s record of lying to trust anything in CofC unless a direct quote from the source is available.

A quarter-of-a-million people is not insignificant.

Many of those survivors fled Hungary for an Anglo nation or Israel after the war.

More importantly, Irving doesn’t mention the ethnicity of men making use of prostitutes. In fact, in context it’s clear Irving was talking about the sex habits of ordinary Hungarian such as factory and health workers, as well as surveys of the overall Hungarian population:

“Sexual morality became lax. While during the first years of the
Communist rule standards had been puritan, these soon
changed.”

“A staggering proportion of Hungarian males questioned in confidence by American
sociologists admitted losing their virginity to prostitutes. [32.
CUOHP, hospital official.] ”

The text is clearly talking about Hungarian society in general, not Jews or even ranking party officials as MacDonald implied.

The things you mention don’t seem to be very central to his thesis,

But why trust the thesis if we there’s doubt whether he quoted his documentation truthfully? His thesis now needs to be verified with direct analysis of those sources now.

and that Jews were never a sufficient but often a necessary condition for the disasters in question. I.e. it wasn’t the Jews who made the Russian Revolution, but without Jews there would have been either no revolution or a much less malign one.

There’s no debate Jews participated in the Russian Revolution but the evidence that without them things would turn out differently is iffy because liberalism has been advancing everywhere across the West even when Jewish involvement is minimal.

And relying on MacDonald’s work given his history of lying puts your debate points on very weak factual grounds.

80% of the early revolutionary leadership was gentile. Without Jews, the roles played by the likes of Trotsky would have been replaced by an “Iron Felix” Dzherinsky.

A causal relationship between Jewish politics in general is shaky because there were and are more elite liberal gentiles carrying the same ideology as Jews.

Examples of leftism advancing with minimal Jewish contribution include modern Sweden, the 90% or better gentile white EU elite, post-WWII Britain, the liberal 1969-1994 Supreme Court which had no Jews on it. Anarchism was founded by an ethnic Russian (Mikhail Bakunin) and a Russian aristocrat, Pyotr Kropotkin. Engels would have probably created an ideology similar to Communism without Marx since Communism is just Hegelian Historicism married to revolutionary socialism.

Even in examples like Hollywood it’s doubtful Hollywood would be different politically were the execs overwhelmingly gentile. There might be marginal differences, less emphasis on the Holocaust and more documentaries about Congo genocide, etc. But nothing substantively would be different politically, unless you think turning the movie industry into the BBC is an ideological victory.

No, it is true. He rarely talks or writes about Jews and subversive theories.

I would love to read a detailed treatment of MacDonald’s work with similar (or better) points to those you raised.

The things you mention don’t seem to be very central to his thesis, and in a work of over 1000 pages you can probably find a few problematic points like that. The last point about the fact that Jews were worried about the “taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism” vs. what MacDonald attributed to them (that they were opposed to the explicit or implicit ethnic nature of America) even looks like hair splitting to me. I mean, what does a “taint of discrimination” or a “taint of anti-Semitism” mean, if not the fact that they simply disliked the ethnic nature of a country? I mean, if a country is explicitly Anglo-Saxon, than the Scots-Irish might feel discriminated against, so any wish to make the country explicitly Anglo-Saxon will have a “taint” of “discrimination” and “anti-Scots-Irishism” to them. I don’t think it’s misrepresenting any facts. Am I missing something?

I also noticed that point about the Jewish access to gentile women, and this was probably the only true problematic point I can remember in the whole trilogy. Not that it’s central to MacDonald’s thesis or any point he is making. The essence of his statement (that Jews constituted the highest echelons of the communist leadership in Hungary, as well as the majority of officers in the secret police, that it was bad for Hungarians, that fueled anti-Semitism, etc. etc.) is valid without any reference to gentile women or maidens being paid for childbearing. (Most of those single mothers were from the lower classes, I’m not sure how many mistresses these bigwigs had, but I bet you those mistresses had access to abortions or probably some other forms of birth control. The whole slogan of “Childbearing is a duty for a married woman, it’s a glory for a maiden!” was part of the pronatalist policies the communist party had in place at the time.)

Regarding the Two Hundred Years Together, MacDonald started publishing a translation on his website, maybe the project has stalled since. But Solzhenitzyn’s point doesn’t seem to be incompatible with MacDonald’s point, namely that gentile Europeans have some weaknesses that make them susceptible to Jewish manipulation, and that Jews were never a sufficient but often a necessary condition for the disasters in question. I.e. it wasn’t the Jews who made the Russian Revolution, but without Jews there would have been either no revolution or a much less malign one. Similarly, it’s not the Jews who caused alone the surge of immigration, but without them it would not have happened, or would have been ended long ago. Same thing with multiculturalism etc. Jews are never the sole reason.

Others have already commented on the fact that many Jews were left in Hungary after 1945, so I’ll leave it at that.

Nixon: Gays were born that way! US Mideast policy should not be made by a Jew!

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/07/nixon-secret-white-house-audio-tapes

Looks like Žižek got the carets, and Hornbeck and Taylor got the stick.

#12 the undiscovered jew says :
“Solzhenitsyn emphatically denies that Jews were responsible for the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. At the end of chapter nine, Solzhenitsyn denounces “the superstitious faith in the historical potency of conspiracies” that leads some to blame the Russian revolutions on the Jews and to ignore the “Russian failings that determined our sad historical decline.”[9]”

It seems to me that Solzhenitsyn wanted to make sure that Russians understood that they had *also* played an important role in those events and that Jews, Letts, etc didn’t act *alone*.
He denies that they were the only ones involved but he certainly doesn’t deny that the Jews played an extremely important role overall.
From what I remember, Solzhenitsyn says that the bolshevik revolution itself was not a jewish mass movement at first. While there were Jews involved, most intellectual Jews were at that point more involved in various socialist and/or zionist movements. Once the bolsheviks took power, though, the mass of Jews quickly rallied to them with enthusiasm. Solzhenitsyn says that without the massive jewish support, the bolshevik revolution could have easily ended up stillborn.

Even Mehler doesn’t say he can say for certain that MacDonald was misrepresenting his source. He considers it questionable and calls for someone else to look into it.

It’s the same old story. No Jew can withstand the scrutiny they apply to MacDonald, no leftoid idea can withstand the scrutiny leftoids apply to race-realism, etc.

That’s the best you could do?

Yes, it’s the best he can do.