An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

SOCIAL SCIENCE & THE POLITICS OF MODERN JEWISH IDENTITY by Michael B Hart, ISBN 0804738246, Stanford U Press (Stanford Studies In Jewish History & Culture), published 2000, covers essentially the same material as Prof MacDonald but from a self-interested Jewish perspective. I saw it advertised in Commentary magazine. I will not repeat the (positive) material re: Culture of Critique by the other reviewers. COC's main disadvantage is its sheer dictionary-sized length. I have suggested Prof KMD release a highly abridged booklet of no more than 100 pages covering the basic, absolute essentials, for those with neither the time nor desire to read all 3 of his 'trilogy' (which I did) but who want to know, but are ignorant of, the material covered. Practically all but the the whole basis of "White Guilt" is one way or another addressed, dismantled & nuked by Prof KMD in these books. (But strictly speaking Prof KMD is as mystified as I am over what causes, in technically precise terms, white self-diminishment/'White Guilt' & in the entire work there are just a handful of sentences near the end about altruism modules in Northern hunter-gatherer folk that have malfunctioned, but this rather thin explanation is not pursued, nor does KMD ever explain critically why other Northern tribes eg Inuits et al do not seem to have these same issues, nor known historical examples from white European history where this mechanism ought to have operated but did not so far as we know, etc.)
Social Science & Politics of Modern Jewish Identity covers essentially the same material as COC but from a self-interested Jewish perspective from Stanford U Press. Prof KMD was severely criticised for telling the truth, eg, his statement in PTSDA that Jehovah is a freeborn Jewish man's sperm. I spent many years learning for myself most of the material KMD covers but even I learned many things I did not know. SS&PoMJI by Hart describes many of the things KMD covers in COC but from an entirely sympathetic, self-interested Jewish pov, but no-one went berserk over SS&PoMJI, sued Hart, moved to deny As Prof Hart tenure, etc. Hart discusses many movements & people (incl things probably neither I nor KMD has ever even heard of) &, rather interestingly for us, in some cases unintended negative consequences. Academics especially should be aware of Hart's fairly excellent, scholarly book. Everything Prof KMD has to say (minus comments re: whites) can be pieced together from purely Jewish sources, it just takes 1-2 decades of time to read that most people don't have.

Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique goes over Jewish intellectual movements that critique Western Civilization. A lot of the movements are based on pseudo-intellectualism that emphasizes political rhetoric that sounds scientific, but ultimately is not based on any scientific experimentation. MacDonald exposes the falsities of such "intellectuals" as Freud and the psychoanalysts, Franz Boas and the radical enviromental sociologists, Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism, Stephen Gould's Mismeasure of Man.
MacDonald shows how that Jews generally have felt alienated from gentile society and have viewed it as racist, unjust, and sick. Their anti-gentile sentiments have had an influence on the political atmosphere of Western nations as they have tried to make the West more multi-cultural while still retaining a stong group cohesion. As they keep their own cohesion, they wish to break down the racial cohesion of whites by their intellectual movements that emphasize anti-racism and sexual license. Freud's psychoanalysis movement is viewed by MacDonald as a method in which to break down the high investment parenting of white gentiles by getting them to become more promiscuous and less interested in forming strong families.
MacDonald's greatest strength is his thorough documentation of these intellectual movements to back up his thesis. The reader will have a different view of the political changes that have occurred during the twentieth century. MacDonald predicts that white gentiles may become more collective in the future in order to preserve their race and culture. I think that many white gentiles after reading this book will be angry at these various jewish intellectuals and many jewish readers will be angry at MacDonald. This is a divisive work.
I thought may have missed a few rogue intellectual movements though. He could have targeted the jewish influence on feminism and our economic, monetary, and foreign policies. I also thought that is the west is so universal and assimilationist as MacDonald claims, then multiculturalism would not be such a controversial movement.

Unquestionably, this is one of the best books that I have ever read in terms of explaining real phenomena that greatly affects the lives of all Americans, and indeed the rest of the world, given that America is the great superpower. I'll list some of the strengths of the book, then suggest some minor criticisms. However, the strengths of the book are so overwhelming that the book of course deserves five stars.

One of the best strengths of the book is that it is very scholarly and the footnotes are copious and quite generous. This is extremely important, for much information on Jews is defamatory, written by the non-specialist, and couched in hateful terms, and that contains slanderous remarks and negative prescriptions. This book has none of these - it presents the facts as they are, and allows readers to draw their own conclusions.

The Jewish involvement in political and cultural subversion of their host countries is not new, but Jewish subversion of WASP America has never been so thoroughly and meticulously documented. And this does have real consequences - declining economic status for WASPs and those of European origin, massive resources transfers to non-whites, collective and state-imposed guilt, rampant non-European immigration, none of which were approved of by large majorities of the WASP and European-derived populations of the US. And the central theoretical justification for each of these was cliquishly identified Jews who posed as scholars but were in reality ethnic activists - in the case of Boasian anthropology, the Frankfurt school of psychoanalysis, Jewish activists involvement in immigration policy and the civil rights movement, and so on. It is important that he makes guarded and supportable claims in each of these cases, and he does.

These are the facts, and regardless of one's religion or ideology, facts cannot be "hateful" "exclusivist" "racist" and so on. Nor can one rationalize away facts through ad homenim attacks or even minor or major disagreements with this thesis, which in fact is basically incontrovertible - Jewish intellectual movements comprised of self-deceptive but highly ethnically identified Jews have indeed subverted key and critical areas of cultural and social policy to the detriment of the European base population of the US. This does not mean a conspiracy, nor even active involvement or even knowledge of these movements by a significant percentage of Jews, or even a majority of Jews. Nor does it mean that the Jewish community is unsympathetic to these movements - on the contrary, Jews typically react in a highly negative way toward criticism of in-group movements, so much of the success of these movements can be attributed to collective political action and demonizing of opposition by powerful Jewish-dominated institutions (the popular press, certain elite universities, the social science and cultural criticism departments of leading public universities)rather than the theoretical worth of the ideologies. He did not pick up on this theme, for obvious reasons, but arguably the success of these movement is as much due to group based demonizing of resistance as due to any merit that it has.

Now, for some qualifiers. The factual basis of the book as I have said is indisputable. But it only tells part of the story and not the whole story, and this is a key flaw of the book. This is why the book is so appealing to overt anti-Semites and neo-Nazis and why the book is so defamed by Jewish scholars, who rightly see it as an incitement to the very kind of collective action that they have imposed so successfully on their ethnic rivals.

The first qualifier is that it details none of the flaws of the group that is brought to the knowledge of the general public by the Jewish dominated intellectual movement. What if white Americans are racist, selfish, imperialist, eager to dehumanize non-whites, and so forth? Perhaps the truth of the claims of these movements plays as much of a role in the success of the movement as any self-deceptive behavior on the part of its Jewish founders. In my experience, Jews have been highly correct in pointing out the flaws of Gentiles, regardless of their own ethical stature.

The second qualifier is that to a great extent Jews have been integrated into the power structure of the US successfully and act as kind of partners in crime, that are hung out to dry when it is convenient to do so, rather than malevolent aggressors against benign WASPs. For instance, the Israeli state is as much of an English invention as a Jewish invention, and no state has been as critical to Anglo control over the resources of the Middle East than this, and arguably this is more of an Anglo interest than a Jewish interest. Moreover, Jewish media control may be a fact, but how much of this media control is used in Anglo conspiracies against rival powers, such as the looting of Russia in the early 1990s by international banksters, the one child policy in China that is the antithesis of Christianity but is promoted solely by the US at this point, US crimes in Iraq, Reagan's support of torture and elimination of dissent to US imperialism in Latin America, and so on. In fact, to punish Jews for working for social justice while ignoring completely when they act as junior partners in crime is typically duplicitous Anglo behavior.

So, though the book is right about Jewish dominance of Leftist movements, in the first point these movements have not always been objectively wrong or even bad in a humanitarian and social justice sense, even if they did to contribute to a loss of privilege from those who had it artificially (I except Bolshevism in Russia from this of course). Moreover, in failing to consider the negative features of both sides, his narrative is one sided and essentially serves to demonize Jews for participating in anti-WASP social justice movements that benefit large numbers of people (non-European immigration to the US, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the Frankfurt school, Boasian anthropology) yet either ignores or tacitly approves of Jewish involvement in movements that are in WASP interests but are manifestly much worse, such as those that I listed above.

Finally, I can say that as a Catholic (and I do not dispute the claim that Catholics lack greater technical skill in the intellectual arena than have Protestants or Jews) many of the movements that he describe are very harmonious with the preferential treatment that the Church holds for the poor, that are largely absent from Anglo society but form a large part of Catholic culture, especially in Latin America. This is why Hollywood found a home in Los Angeles, the capital of Latin America, despite the lack of Catholic support for Jewish ideology on social issues. And these movements, though Jewish-dominated, find a large degree of support from non-whites and non-WASPs domestically and worldwide, and would have been inevitable had WASPs allowed Catholics to occupy the position that Jews had in the social structure and in elite universities. So, to blame Jews as a group for perhaps inevitable corrections to unjust privileges is not right; to couple this with tacit support of Jewish involvement in much worse pro-WASP behavior is almost dishonest.

Having said all of the above, this is not the subject of the book. The subject of the book is an analysis of Jewish-domination of Leftist intellectual movements, and this is meticulously detailed, carefully argued, and quite admirable. However, it is unfortunate that he displays theoretical blindness to other forces related to these Jewish dominated movements, and this weakness is why the book is more popular among active neo-Nazis and anti-Semites than among serious and reputable scholars.

One the great strengths of this books is the author's explanation of the Frankfurt School of Social Research (aka Critical Theory) and the ways it is not a social science and does not use any kind of scietific method but instead relies on ideology and a "worship" of the founders of the school. Science should be done in an individualist way as a detached exploration of the truth. In critical theory the opposite is done and the practicioners try to prove their leftist ideology with their faulty logic and findings. Right now Critical Theory is the most popular type of theory in sociology bty far, for reasons I can't figure out. This is unfortunate because social science should be disinterested and not a part of a wider political plan on the part of ivory tower academics. If one has a desire to read an excellent expose of some of the worst in contemporary academia like Derrida, Horkheimer, Adorno and the old war horses like Freud and Jung look no further. it is all right here in this book. Other highlights include why neoconservatism is a Jewish movement and why Jews are the only ethnic group that are interested in a liberal immigration policy. I have a pretty good background in social science but I would have to say this book is still readable for the lay reader and not at all dry or boring.

I almost done reading Professor. Mac Donald book and I have to say that its really a revealing and detailed book.
I do not belive that professor McDonald is an antisemite as some people dismiss him in previous comments. I belive that the term antisemite is a kind of name calling that jews and non jews use when they want to vilify an opponent that made some very good critiscim towards anyone who is jewish and to whom they are not able to respond using reason. Unforunately the fear of been labeled an antisemite keeps most people from remotely criticicing jews even when their behaviour is so outragious and racist as towards Palestinians.
McDonald wrote his book very meticously and it is in some parts very academic and full of details that makes it hard to read (at least form me that I am Italian) but he has to be so meticoulus becouse he is putting forward a TRULY CONTROVERSIAL issue and he must be accurate.
I really recomend the book to anyone who wants to have a better understanding of what happened and the West and especially to United States in the last century. Without understandig the role played by Jews in this century its hard to truly understand our own culture.

The author is not anti-Jewish, in my opinion. However, he does set forth a great deal of data showing how certain Jewish organizations and intellectuals have pushed agendas that have successfully helped turn America into an increasingly non-European based nation, and a nation with a decreased sense of identity and self-confidence, as well as a generally weaker moral sense . He argues convincingly that these groups and individuals have done this out of a perceived effective method of self-defense.

My question for the author is: Why have so many individuals of the "host" society so readily acquiesced or actively joined in on selling out their own nation, identity, and future? I suppose the answer is that it's the propaganda in the schools and mass media, taking the easy way out, and not wanting to be called a racist or anti-semite. If one does get unjustly tarred with that label what seems to happen is either the person so tarred apologizes and backs away from saying what he really believes (the usual case) or he becomes defensive (quite understandably) and does actually start to become prejudiced (unfortunately). I think Joe Sobran is the case of someone who formerly was not anti-Jewish who has become possibly anti-Jewish because he was unjustly attacked as being an anti-semite, relentlessly, earlier on. (Sobran is a brilliant man, but I think he's become too obsessed with the "Jewish Question" and neglects the "Islamic question" and the "Islamist question" all too much.)

There are lots of great Jewish intellectuals who have stood against the tide of nation-eroding leftism and other travesties; they include Ralph de Toledano, Arnold Beichman, Rael Jean Isaac, and, believe it or not, Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, perhaps the finest man and intellect to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court and New York Court of Appeals. They are all great examples of people of the Jewish faith being strong patriots and strong defenders of the best our civilization has to offer. I resolutely defend their honor, integrity, and patriotism.

So I don't use the broad brush, and I don't think MacDonald really does either.

A fascinating book! The author shows that much of the academic research in social sciences dominated by Jews is an exercise in deception or self-deception. He explains this behavior in terms of group psychology determined by evolutionary mechanisms. But a few issues require further elaboration or are entirely missing:
1) The author's explanation of Marxism as a strategy to emphasize the division of society along lines other than Jew/gentile is open to a question. The most salient feature of Marxism is its apocalyptic messianism. Paradoxically Israeli scholar Gerschom Scholem (whom the author considers over-rated) may have provided a better insight in the origins of Marxism in his book The Messianic Idea in Judaism, in the chapters on Sabbatai Zevi, even though he does not explicitly say so. But the similarity between the two aberrant messianic movements is hard to miss. The author is well aware of traits often found among the Jews such as messianism, self-conceptualization as "the light of the nations", "secret dreams of reversal and triumph", "desire for malignant vengeance", "dark emotions", and tendency towards sectarian, cult-like behavior. But he never uses any of these in his analysis of Marxism.
2) MacDonald notes that Judaism has the best chance of continuation in liberal, individualistic societies. Why would it be in the interest of the Jews to construct totalitarian doctrines such as Marxism? It is not. Marxism is not a product of an adaptive group evolutionary strategy but an extreme, irrational response born out of frustration.
3) The author argues that Jewish radical leftist organizations recruited a few gentiles for the purposes of window dressing. (It sounds a little like the conspiracy theory.) The author makes the case that the Communist Parties of Russia, Poland, Hungary, and USA were initially dominated by Jews. He argues persuasively that these Jews, in spite of their universalistic and internationalist rhetoric, never lost their Jewish identity. Be as it may, the recruitment of the gentiles was not camouflage but proselytization. All the above mentioned parties soon fell under the control of the gentiles and even became anti-Semitic. How could have a few window dressing gentiles got the upper hand in Jewish organizations? Furthermore the communist parties in the Far East probably never had any significant Jewish membership.
4) There is no discussion of the fact that Jews were the most ardent proponents of pan-Germanism in Austria and Germany in the beginning of this century. The author mentions former Trockyists masquerading under the politically correct label of "neoconservatives" around the magazine The Weekly Standard. They advocate establishing an American world empire under the codeword "benevolent global hegemony." The author does not discuss their resemblance to the Jewish pan-Germanists.
5) The author correctly notes the irrationality of doctrines such as psychoanalysis. (He does not mention the irrationality of Marxism.) But there is practically no analysis of why the superior Jewish intellect is unable to discern irrational ideas. The author would probably say that such delusions are a byproduct of group evolutionary strategy. But I presume that the author does not mean by "rationality" (i.e. being in accordance with logic, facts, verifiable) as something that is relative and exists only in the eyes of the beholder.
5) There is no discussion of Gestalt psychology.
6) The author correctly states that monogamy has been the norm in "Western Europe" and polygamy existed in the Orient from Middle East to China. He leaves us guessing if polygamy has been practiced in Greece and Russia.
In spite of these shortcomings the book throws plenty of light on a hitherto unanalyzed subject.

This is an excellent book, which covers the origins of many politically-correct intellectual movements, such as Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, and multiculturalism, especially the movement to increase non-Western immigration to Western countries. The main argument is that the main people involved in these movements were Jews, who in an effort to prevent anti-Semitism, did everything possible to prevent strong group cohesion amongst culturally-homogenous Gentiles in the West. One of the best parts of the book is where MacDonald reviews "The Authoritarian Personality," a widely-used psychology textbook written in the 1950s, which presents unhappy families as the healthy ones and content, closely-knit families as the dysfunctional ones. The idea behind this was to prevent anti-Semitism, as studies had shown that the members of closely-knit families are more likely to have strong group allegiances, and therefore, are more likely to be potential anti-Semites. MacDonald, a psychology professor, has a very deep academic writing style, which takes a bit of getting used to if you're not used to reading that style, but the content is well worth it. All in all, this is a very good book which goes a long way in explaining why the ideas that we're supposed to hold today are so drastically different from the ideas that our ancestors have held for hundreds of years.

This is a fascinating application of evolutionary biology and psychology to the turbulent modern history of Jews and the West. In a nutshell, it is impossible to understand the intellectual movements of the 20th century, from Freudian Psychiatry to Marxist economics to Cultural Marxism (also known as Political Correctness) without understanding the role that Jewish ethnicity played in all of them. You will now understand the driving force behind many of the 20th centuries Left wing ideologies. You will also come to understand the danger the US faces as it comes under the control of a hostile elite.

You will finally understand the hostility that has been projected against WASPs in particular and Europeans in general and why this may be part of an evolutionary strategy. Dr. MacDonald provides a scientific framework for understanding the conflicts in our world. A magnificent work!

Although the percentage of European-Americans who are astute observers of America's socio-political climate is surely tiny, I am hoping that there are enough free thinkers out there who haven't let a lifetime worth of media conditioning restrain them from making at least a cursory study of the Jewish power structure. There is no single issue as compelling, or as important for us to understand, than the subject matter covered in Dr. Macdonald's seminal work.
For a University Professor to risk his career by writing three books about this highly sensitive topic is surely laudable, but I still kept asking myself, why? Wouldn't just the thought of unleashing the whole Cult of Political Correctness upon oneself be daunting enough? But after reading this book it is obvious that the author realizes his conclusions are sound, and won't easily be drowned out by the shopworn "anti-Semite" smear.
Do most Americans of European descent suppose that their rapid eclipsing by non-whites is just some natural phenomenon, like gravity? Because the roll that powerful Jews played in changing our immigration laws was essential, and without them it never would have happened. Things get even more insidious when you come to see the monumental hypocrisy on their part when openly discussing the results of those changes. White Americans are supposed to adopt multi-culturalism as one of their highest ideals, and to stand against it is to be tagged a 'racist' or a 'xenophobe'. But with Israel it is another matter entirely. Do we see this ethno-state's leaders beating the drums for more diversity in the Holy Land? The complete opposite, actually. This is just one example of Jewish hubris explained so well by the author.
I recommend this book to anyone who is concerned about the decline of the West and wants honest answers. But if you happen to be a PC/conformist sort who never has an original thought that isn't an extention of what's on your television screen, then this information may be difficult to absorb.
This is a very, very important book. I'm confident that in the future, history will judge it so.

The in-depth and extensive research understaken for this study speaks for itself. It is really necessary to read this book (or any book) before evaluating its merit. This one is scholarly, but very well-written; it is well worth the effort, as it points with overwhelming evidence to the concerted and aggressive ethnocentric/racial force behind the scenes, but more and more to the fore, that is shaping the current policies of the West -- to its detriment. The ethnocentric/racial purpose, expressed over and over through time, is to dominate or destroy what is not itself, in the name of survival. The neocons are currently right on target, too, pitting the West against Islam, using government, the media, financial and educational systems, etc. to further their agenda. As has been pointed out elsewhere, Israel is the one country that has benefitted from the Iraq war. Anyone who cares about the survival of the West should read this book. The Culture of Critique is a scholarly study, and does not offer remedies or advocate action. But a reader might expect, by becoming aware of the facts (as opposed to media propaganda), to become more aware of what and who he/she is is voting for, and why. We would have candidates who looked out for OUR interests, if we demanded them, instead of going along with the now status-quo.

Coming from a small mono-ethnic town in Western-Europe I used to have no doubts about the truth as it was presented to me by all kinds of media at that time. It is still the truth for most western people: multiculturalism, interracial marriage, homo- and bisexuality, liberalism towards drugs are all cases that are fought for by honest intellectuals who want to create a better world. The so-called idealists.
Moving to a city to study at university I gradually began to see the other side of all these so-called achievements in practice: criminality, violende, divorce, explicit promotion of perversity, prostitution, large-scale heroin addiction etcetera. The strange thing is: West-Europeans have learned to find all this completely normal.
After being confronted with the other side of so-called liberal society, the thinking process starts. At first I tried to find the answer to the "why question" mostly in traditional rightwing politics. In Europe, unfortunately, the so-called rightwing does not differ fundamentally from the leftwing in fighting the excesses sketched above. In fact, it is all nearly the same! Except some so-called far-right parties, nearly every party in Western-Europe is pro gay-marriage for example! Living in the US nowadays I know that Republican and Democratic politics can differ to a much greater extent.
But to the point: by experience, reading and reconstructing I went on answering the "why question", but with Kevin MacDonald's book a lot of pieces from the big puzzle fell into place. I know that I'm not the only one who has experienced great feelings of guilt on the way to finding the truth about certain sociological phenomena.
From their youngest years most western people are subject to an ongoing stream of indoctrination that aims at forbidding to even think about certain facts or opinions. After reading this book nobody can deny that a lot of things presented as liberalism are just ways to divide and confuse Western man.
This divide and conquer liberalism has nothing to do with freedom. From my experience in Europe I can say that jews there have many high positions in government, entertainment and other large companies. A lot of these functions have to do with promoting multiculturalism and shaping a nationwide and international thought police that is mostly called anti-racism.
Although MacDonald's book is mostly focused on America, the presented theory holds for Europe as well.
The most striking aspect of the whole book is the organized thought control by institutions who see in certain opinions a conflict with Jewish interests.
This book is one of the biggest eye-openers available to everyone who is anxious to understand what exactly is going on in the Western world.

Kevin MacDonald, in a well-researched piece of work, puts forth a devastating indictment of Jewry in the decline of the West and of European man. The last in a very convincing trilogy, Culture of Critique provides much needed answers to those Euro-Americans who know that something is desperately wrong, but do not understand WHY things are wrong, and WHO is responsible. This book's last chapter by itself is almost worth the price, as it summarizes the present state of the West, and the grim future we face, unless we can build the group-serving ideologies and structures that will allow us to survive. This book is a must read.

This book is absolutely amazing! It opened my eyes to the fact that Jews have been using an evolutionary group strategy to advance their group interests, at the expense of us non-jews, especially whites.
It is fascinating and eye opening material. I am ordering his other books as well!

It is quite apparent to every rational person that the Western world is currently caught in the jaws of some sort of lunatic, left-wing hysteria called political correctness -- but why? Do these things just happen, like changes in the weather? Or do people make them happen?
MacDonald's trilogy (particularly Culture of Critique) provides a unique, well-documented explanation for nearly all the plagues which have afflicted us in the past century -- Marxism, psychoanalysis, massive third world immigration, egalitarianism, the taboo against eugenics, and the profound corruption of the social sciences. These are not independent, unrelated catastrophes which simply descended upon us from nowhere, they are all part of one massive campaign. According to MacDonald, the current Zeitgeist in its various manifestations is the product of Jews and Jewish organizations working for many decades to re-create the social and political world of the West, bit by bit, into one which is maximally favorable to their own ethnic interests.
The Jews have been massacred or expelled from every nation in which they have resided in their 3000-year history, and quite understandably, their paramount concern is ensuring that it doesn't happen again. In a confident, united, ethnically homogeneous society -- such as Nazi Germany -- Jews are much more vulnerable as conspicuous outsiders, and they know this both consciously and
unconsciously. They are safer and more powerful in a society that is divided and disorganized. They become less noticeable, just one group among many, free to advance their own agenda unopposed.
When the Jews' goals are contrary to the best interests of the nation as a whole, they often employ deception and intimidation to accomplish them. What's fascinating and especially illuminating are MacDonald's forays into Judaism and Jewish history which enable the reader to see religious roots supporting these behaviors, and a similar dynamic between Jews and Gentiles in times and places very different from our own.
Kevin MacDonald's trilogy is a cautious, unemotional, thorough work of a dedicated scholar, one which is meticulously documented, and drawn largely from Jewish sources, yet the implications of his findings are explosive. It doesn't take the average American long to realize that the dominant social and political culture which Jewry has imposed upon us is inimical to the interests of the other 98% of the country, and to European-Americans in particular. Many Americans bitterly reject this alien culture, but they are deeply confused about exactly how and why it all came into being, and who or what, precisely, is behind it. MacDonald is the source for answers.

Professor Macdonald has written an eye-opening treatise on Jewish involvement in 20th century political movements. The book is entitled 'Culture of Critique' because many of these Jewish movements/organizations were formed to critique white Christian American institutions and beliefs. The basic premise of the book is that these Jewish organizations sought to make American more pluralistic and multicultural, while simultaneously maintaining their group solidarity. Through pschoanalysis, the Boasian school of anthropology, the New York intellectuals, advocating non-white immigration, communism, and other means, the Jews essentially broke the WASP establishment and displaced it with themselves. This was done in the name of combating anti-Semitism.

I once heard someone say that the Jewish people are inherently self-destructive. They were compared to the scorpion that rides the frog's back across the river, and then stings the frog when it gets across. Upon the frog asking the scorpion why it would have done this, the scorpion replies it is simply in its nature. It could help itself from stinging the frog. I constantly thought of this metaphor while reading this book. The Jewish people did not need to engage in this attack on the white Christian American establishment. They were relatively safe and prosperous in this country. However, they simply could not help themselves. It is just their nature.

As a former leftist Hollywood Jew (I wrote TV shows), I can say from personal experience that Prof. MacDonald is 100% correct in this book. The shows I worked on: Mary Tyler Moore Show, That Girl, & Love American Style, among others, were nothing more than Jewish tools (for the most part) to undermine the innocence of American WASP culture, ("Cultural Marxism" as Prof. MacDonald calls it).
I became disturbed with the studio editorial "rule" that children should be portrayed as sassy and disrespectful towards their parents. A few times I presented a script to my editor (also a Jewish guy) in which I had the child character behaving politely and respectfully towards his parents. The editor changed the lines to make the child bratty/sassy and then told me "... that's the way it should be done from now on, unless I tell you otherwise". That's when I started to see that something else was going on besides just making TV shows. I could see the changes in American society resulting from all this TV propaganda. I eventually left writing and became a teacher.

Kudos to Prof. MacDonald for his meticulous research in writing this book.

MacDonald puts into words what I had so often felt but could not explain. His thesis would be difficult to refute given the voluminous quotes of leading Jewish intellectuals provided.
This is a must read.

This book is a worthy read, an intriguing piece that deserves inspection. As to the evidential validity of the statements represented within it, I cannot attest--however, I can attest that this work will challenge your perceptions, and will force you to ponder the recent history of the Jewish people. It is worth reading for that alone.

You can ignore reviewers who label this work 'anti-semitic.' They are merely representative of the larger intellectual establishment, which would smear a work by labelling it 'racist,' 'sexist,' or 'anti-semitic' rather than debate its scientific value.

Fact 1: The US currently has hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East fighting an unwinnable war on "terror" by exporting "democracy" to the Middle East by invading sovereign countries.

Fact 2: Our southern border remains virtually unguarded and so many millions of illegal and legal third-worlders have already pored in that the white Americans who founded this country are set to become a demographic minority by 2050.

If either of these facts troubles you, or you at least find the coincidence curious, this book is a must-read.

According to the popular portrayal, Jews in the US are among our most intelligent, hardworking, educated and patriotic fellow citizens. Due to their unique history of unjust persecution in Europe, culminating in the barbaric Nazi Holocaust, they have been leading activists for social justice here, selflessly using their wealth and talent to help those less fortunate including other ethnic minorities. Indeed, the Jew has become something of a moral exemplar for the rest of us: their "civil rights" groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (of B'nai Brith) have taken it upon themselves to cooperate with law enforcement in fighting "hate crimes," and even offer to help parents keep their kids away from "racism" or other "hate speech" by "voluntary" internet filters. So praiseworthy are the Jews that even the few famous people who run afoul of them--from Marlon Brando to Dolly Parton to Prince Harry--inevitiably see the light and apologize in order to maintain any public legitimacy whatsoever.

Startingly juxtaposed against this hagiography is Kevin MacDonald's unique history of organized Jewish intellectual movements in the 20th century. To him, Jews are a small, cohesive minority with interests distinct from and often in conflict with ours. They have used their wealth, their vast media ownership and their dominant positions in academic social science and psychiatry to relentlessly push their own sociopolitical agenda, most notably to deligitimize or "pathologize" any sense of group solidarity on the part of white gentiles; to deny any inborn factor in ethnic group behavioral differences; to eliminate the national origin quotas in US immigration laws and darken forever the country's complexion; and generally to "critique" the cultural and moral traditions of Western civilization.

Why would the Jews, so prosperous in modern America, want to undermine its very foundations? According to MacDonald, Jews simply feel more comfortable in a multiracial, multicultural society. They believe that the absence of a dominant ethnic majority will minimize anti-Semitism, and that they can maintain their own group solidarity while the larger society is increasingly Balkanized. Thus, in MacDonald's model, the Jews have operated essentially "by way of deception," promoting radically egalitarian, universalistic ideas as good for all, when in fact they were only "good for the Jews," and quite clearly bad for white gentiles.

Who is Kevin MacDonald? A rabid anti-Semite? A neo-Nazi skinhead? Actually, he's a tenured California State University Professor of Psychology who studies human behavior in a Darwinian framework. His work is extensively researched and documented, and most significantly, his major claims about self-interested Jewish motives are in fact backed up by quotations from prominent Jews.

Beyond this, perhaps the best test of whether the Jews are as magnanimous as we're led to believe is whether they practice among themselves what they preach for the rest of us. To wit, contrast the open border US immigration policy Jews have agitated for with Israel's "law of return." Indeed, if multiculturalism is so wonderful here, why must Israel be permanently defined as a "Jewish state"? Go to the ADL's website and decide for yourself whether they're really interested in "fair treatment to all," or just well-funded, pro-Israel propagandists.

Also interesting are famous Jews like Alan Dershowitz, so ardently in favor of racial integration, who loudly bemoan Jewish "assimilation" and intermarriage in particular. Do white gentiles have a similar right to oppose assimilation with minorities? Or would any of us who do so be excoriated by the Jewish ADL, Jewish-run Hollywood and Dershowitz himself as evil or mentally ill "racists" and "haters"? This book will leave you with little doubt.

Due to his scientific perspective, MacDonald stops short of advocating any particular political solution to the policies causing the impending demographic eclipse of the white race. Nonetheless, "Culture of Critique" is a very worthwhile read. At the very least, next time you're wolfing down that breakfast burrito wondering what happened to you grandfather's America, you'll have a better sense of where it went and who dispatched it to oblivion.

Virtually all books written about 20th century history, politics, sociology and culture omit an objective analysis of a key factor: the influence of Jewish individuals and groups. In a work thoroughly researched and brilliantly written, Kevin MacDonald courageously investigates this critical factor of our past, present and future.

Never before has anyone been able to assemble a compendium of the enemies' actions throughout history in such a concise manner. This book and its author tell it how it is, and as such both will be honored for bringing light to the darkness.

The title of this commentary says it. The professor has pursued his subject with the integrity of a true scientist, and delivered truth to us on a platter. Unfortunately most U.S. citizens will swallow anything but the truth...they've been conditioned by decades of propaganda. They don't even care if their presidents lie anymore. But those who still value honor and honesty - here's a book for you!

Very well written book. Overall, I give it an OK review. It was well researched, but the conclusions that Professor MacDonald reaches are not consistent. I tried to contact the author directly, and although he did make an effort to answer some of the simpler questions, most of them he left unanswered. Perhaps he is just busy - but if I had a potential follower, I would do what I could to help educate and point him or her in the right direction or help them understand where they are flawed in their logic.

That being said some of my critique follows:

The following is a principle that has been proposed to me: "The Jews as a group are always working to advance their collective survival and success by working together closely. While perhaps most Jews don't know about this, 90% of modern liberals / new world order advocates in positions of power in government, the media, and education are all Jews who want things that are bad for white people's interests. Hence, we should legally prohibit Jews from entering careers in education, the media, or politics, or even prohibit them from entering the country (USA)."

I was asked to read your book as proof of this position.

My belief is that the Jews do have some collective goals, but that they aren't all necessarily in concert nor bad for white people. They just advance the interests of the group first and foremost. While there is a disproportionate number of Jews in high ranking positions of power compared to their overall demographic representation, assessing that 90% of every liberal new world order advocate in a position of authority is Jewish is false, and probably impossible to verify empirically.

I thought your book was good, and actually saw in it more of a validation of my beliefs about the Jews vice the other position. If I am mistaken, please let me know.

With that said, I have a few questions:

-In your preface you write: "There may have been other forces that relegated a nativist mindset to the political and intellectual fringe - Gottfried (2000) points a finger at liberal Protestantism and the rise of the managerial state, but it is impossible to understand the effectiveness of either of the these influences in the absence of the Jewish movements I describe."

And again: "Jewish intellectual and political activities were a necessary condition for the rise of such an elite."

And further: "In the late 19th century, the great bulk of the Jewish population lived in Eastern Europe, with many Jews mired in poverty and all surrounded by hostile populations and unsympathetic governments."

If you believe this, how do you account for the large changes made in the power of the U.S. Federal managerial government during the mid-19th Century, a period where the Jewish influence on politics and the media was virtually non-existent?

-"In the year 1900, Americans did not think of America as a Marxist Hell - they thought of it as a world of harmony between the social classes."

By this I assumed you saw the year 1900 as a sort of high water mark for individual liberty and prosperity in America. Do you believe that in that year most Americans saw themselves in harmony with other Americans?

-"Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers." -What do you base this position on?

-"Jews tend toward polygamy." And "Moral universalism is antithetical to the Jewish tradition." -What do you base these assertions on? Most Jews I know are in monogamous married relationships.

-"My view is that Judaism must be conceived as an ethnic and not a religious group." It seems you believe this because some Jewish figures have claimed that (Boas, Netanyahu, Bronfman, and Steinlight, etc).

-You mention Hammer's Y chromosome data proves that an average of only 1 in 200 matings were with non-Jews over 2,000 years of history. I looked at Hammer's article from the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." Can you describe in layman's terms the type of statistical sample that proves this, and what that sample is based on?

You mention that there is a pecking order inside Judaism too. In that Ashkanazi Jews are higher in order than Black Jews or Oriental Jews. You also mention the 15th C migration of Jews to Spain and Africa - and those who intermarried with local women before stopping further intermarriage. How is this reconciled with your theory that the Jews have maintained their ethnic purity? Doesn't this demonstrate that Judaism really is a creed and not a race since there are so many different ethnic groups that claim to be part of the group?

-Especially at the beginning of the twentieth century, a common view held that the Bolshevik Revolution was largely a Jewish enterprise. In some places, your writing seems to confirm this belief. In other places, your writing seems to discourage it.

From my research, I have concluded that even during the period when Jewish radicalism was at its height, most Jews were not communists, and most communists were not Jews. It would be difficult to consider the Chinese communist movement an instance of Jewish Bolshevism.

The precepts of Judaism are meant to apply only to Jews: they do not constitute an ethical system that prescribes a best social order for all of humanity.

This is the part where I'm challenged in accepting your premise about the Jews being the primary driving force behind Communism. You talk about Jews essentially being the source of bolshevism, but then you also state that they do not advance moral universalism. The points seem contradictory.

But then you also write: "There is no implication that Judaism constitutes a unified movement or that all segments of the Jewish community have the same beliefs or attitudes toward the gentile community. Jews may constitute a predominant element in radical political movements and Jewish identification may be highly compatible with or even facilitate involvement in these movements without most Jews being involved in these movements and even if the Jews are a numerical minority within the movement."

So here it seems that you agree: The Jews participated but they weren't the primary participant as far as numbers. I assume then that you consider them the primary driver because of skill, intelligence and resources.

-During WW2, if Nazi Germany was anti-Semitic, why were they not welcomed by native Russians with open arms? The Ukrainians initially saw the Nazis as potential liberators, but that mood changed very quickly after the German occupation. If the Soviet government was Jewish, and the Nazi government was anti-Jewish, why wasn't there general revolution against the Soviets in Russia by the common middle class to aid the German liberator?

-You mention the Cold War. That early communism was pro-Jew, and late communism was anti-Jew. If the Jews are in complete control of the media, education, and government, how would you reconcile this with the post-World War I Red Scare and the activism of A. Mitchell Palmer? How would you reconcile it with the purgings by Stalin of many Jewish senior Soviet leaders, and the West's support of the Finns against the Soviets in the Winter War? Your writing seems to imply that Stalin's purges were just a relative handful of high ranking Jews, but based on my research they seemed extensive, especially high ranking military generals. And somehow that the establishment of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC) quelled the international uproar over the killing of many Jews by the Communists. Yet JAC was not successful at stopping continued antagonism of the US toward the Soviet Union, including supporting the freedom fighters in Greece and Turkey. This was prior to the Soviet policy change toward Israel in the late 1940s. You also make no mention of the suppression of the Jewish Press. At the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution there were 400 Yiddish periodicals. By 1938, there were none. I understand that since the Jews have connections and greater influence, more attention is given to those purgings than to all the other ethnicities - and rightful indignation should result from that, I agree with you. But it doesn't support the view that Communism was Jewish in origin, since the communists did not exempt the Jews from the purgings. Even in early Communism.

-If late communism was anti-Jew, how do you reconcile this with the Media's clear support for the communists under Ho Chi Minh or condemnation of UNITA in the War against the FMLA in Angola? You state that this anti-semitism in the Communist Bloc achieved its greatest intensity in the late 1960s, at exactly the same time the media was criticizing anti-communist conflicts. To what do you attribute this? You also state that the Jews begin their movement from the American political far left to the neoconservative branch of the Republican party in order to continue advancing their cause against Communism. But if they were in control of the media, why would this be necessary?

-You write "despite the massive evidence for a very large Jewish involvement in these movements, there are no apologies from Jewish organizations and very few mea culpas from Jewish intellectuals." I don't deny there were many Jews involved in the Communist atrocities. But my question for you would be, what kind of an apology are you expecting and from whom? If it was individual jews that participated in these actions, who are the jews that need to apologize? If it was organizations, which ones? If you are just looking for "Jewish organizations" to apologize, this charge seems to imply that the Jews don't act individually, that they are in fact a monolith.

-You state that the Jews control the media. That a "survey performed in the 1980s, 60 percent of a sample of the movie elite were of Jewish background." What is the definition of a movie elite? What is the definition of a Jewish background? Does that mean having a Jewish sounding name, being the member of a synagogue, or having Jewish ethnicity? For those with Jewish ethnicity, is there a certain percentage of Jewish blood that could consider you a Jew or is it the presence of any Jewish ethnicity at all, regardless of how small? Is it a survey respondent identifying himself as a Jew? If the Jews are controlling the media, why would the media be allowed to produce movies that were more pro-White and portrayed minorities as criminals? Movies like Dirty Harry, Death Wish, Taxi Driver, the Warriors, and Escape From New York to name a few.

-I know quite a few journalists and educators that are clearly writing and speaking against foreign interventionism - people that do not support protecting Israel. More than just the ones you list like Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak. Michael Novak (who just recently passed), Samuel Gregg, Fr. Sirico (of the Acton Institute), Lew Rockwell, Jeffrey Tucker... the list goes on. And they have been writing and speaking for decades. I've known all of them and their work for at least the last 20 years. Even the late St. Pope John Paul II was strongly opposed to the US invasions in the Middle East, after 9/11.

-Many of these points I am making with you have been answered by others with the Jews "play both sides." What is your opinion on that?

Thank you for writing this book. I enjoyed it, and learned a lot about the Jewish influence on a number of movements, particularly Boas' influence on anthropology and the psychoanalytic movement.

As a summary - the impression I get overall from your research largely confirms beliefs that I already held: The Jews have been persecuted by European civilizations. As a consequence, they have sought to assist each other collectively and assist marginalized groups in order to gain greater influence in open societies (such as the United States). A disproportionate number of them rise to the top strata of societies, largely because of hard work ethic, higher than average IQ, and collective cooperation. Some of the things they advance are harmful to the interests of white people, but not all. However, most of their causes are primarily for the interests (collective survival) of their group. But they aren't always successful in accomplishing them.

The idea that 90% of all liberal new world order elites are Jews, that they all have the same beliefs and are working in concert, and that Jews in general should be legally prohibited from entering careers in education, the media or politics - these statements are false.

If I have mis-represented your research, or presented something that you disagree with please let me know.

Thanks very much for your time.

To read this intellectually intoxicating book is suddenly to realize how unfree public discourse in 21st Century America really is.
MacDonald's argument is compelling and, in its broad outline, rather obvious. It is serious and brilliantly illuminating. It is in no way hateful or racist. But MacDonald says things that you just don't hear said, that never appear in our famously free media. MacDonald is a real hero for so boldly describing this elephant in the modern intellectual history of the West, an elephant that stands otherwise unnoticed and unremarked upon.

A very well-written book. MacDonald does an excellent job in revealing how Jewish society is incompatible with Western Civilization and why Jews as a social entity have attacked and are in the process of destroying Western society, its morals and culture. Every person of European descent should read this book to realize why are society is slowly evolving into a society which is contrary to what is healthy, vibrant and sustaining.

The author analyzes a select few of the major political and cultural movements having shaped Western political thought in the last century, among them marxism, multiculturalism and psychoanalysis. In my view the weakest link in MacDonald's attack on the proponents of these movements as being servants of a Jewish agenda is that he concludes thus because of their Jewish ethnicity. It appears as if he does not consider the possibility of that Freud, Marx (and others) and their Jewish followers developed and held the views they did, not because they were Jewish, but because these were the views they developed and held. I would be more careful than MacDonald is in attributing viewpoints to ethnicity just like that. Although MacDonald argues well, his views stand as _opinions_. During his testimony for David Irving the author professed being an agnostic in the case of the Holocaust: After having read this book, I would have to profess being an agnostic in the case he is making.

It is probably unfair to label this book anti-semitic. It would be more correct to say it is scepti-semitic.

The book is well worth reading.

The author analyzes a select few of the major political and cultural movements having shaped Western political thought in the last century, among them marxism, multiculturalism and psychoanalysis. In my view the weakest link in MacDonald's attack on the proponents of these movements as being servants of a Jewish agenda is that he concludes thus because of their Jewish ethnicity. It appears as if he does not consider the possibility of that Freud, Marx (and others) and their Jewish followers developed and held the views they did, not because they were Jewish, but because these were the views they developed and held. I would be more careful than MacDonald is in attributing viewpoints to ethnicity just like that. Although MacDonald argues well, his views stand as _opinions_. During his testimony for David Irving the author professed being an agnostic in the case of the Holocaust: After having read this book, I would have to profess being an agnostic in the case he is making.

It is probably unfair to label this book anti-semitic. It would be more correct to say it is scepti-semitic.

The book is well worth reading.

The irony of this author’s thesis associating Jews only with left-wing causes is that a huge chunk of American and Israeli Jews—from Shel Adelson to the Podhoretzes to Netanyahu—have been staunch right-wing Republicans since 1980 and Reagan. It was neocon Jews like these who spearheaded Bush’s war in Iraq to “protect” Israel, and now often support Trump as the Great Jewish hope for going to war with Iran to “protect” Israel’s increasing apartheid yet again. Until 1980, American and Israeli Jews were overwhelmingly progressives. Since then, not nearly as much, because Republicans much more than Democrats have been happy to quite literally fight Israel’s wars for it with American blood and trillions in new debt. As long as Republicans are fanatics for Likud Israel, conservative American Jews have been happy to go along with Republican racism, sexism, and homophobia, not to mention oligarchical, right wing economics, as a small price to pay for Republican wars for Israel. Next stop, Tehran.

This is a psuedo scholarly study of how Jews came to `dominate' the `culture of critique'. The premise is quite simple. Jews are a tiny conspiratorial minority. They control banking, media, money, and other things. They use these things to wield intellectual power, to dominate nations, to force the west to conform to their values, and eventually they use their power in the government to swamp the `host' nation with immigrants and plunge the `host' nation into war with foreign nations either (A) to weaken the `host' nation or (B) to help Israel and Jewish interests.

What are the problems with this line of reasoning? First of all it is true that Jews appear to be disproportionately represented in certain professions, music, media, banking as examples. But the author doesn't ask why? Jews gravitated to these professions because they were forbidden others, just as African Americans succeed in sports and music, so the Jews likewise succeed in places they can. Do Jews `critique' the `host' nation. Yes, Jews turned out to be part of university and intellectual life and Jews certainly worked to create Human Rights and lead nations to give more rights to minorities, since Jews saw in other minority's reflections of themselves. However Jews were equally represented on both sides of the debate. The U.S is a good example. Jews are both intellectual powerhouses of Liberalism and of Conservatives. Jews are on both sides of economics, from the most radical capitalists to the greatest communists. Jews supported Mussolini and were persecuted by him. Jews funded Franco and Jews served in the international brigades to oppose him. More than 100,000 Jews died for Imperial Germany, some killing fellow Jews in the other `host' nations of France and England. If Jews are in fact the leaders of a culture of `critique' they do so against one another as much as against the host country which is why one finds so many anti-Israeli Jewish academics and self hating Jews. Likewise if it true Jews conspire to bring in minorities then why did Germany flood itself with Muslim immigrants after the Holocaust, Jews have had no part in Europe's own immigrant invasion. In the 1960s the racists argued Jews were conspiring to bring blacks to the north to create a race war, however those same blacks Jews helped in the civil rights movement are today the leading anti-Semites.

This book is shod scholarship and although its no Mien Kampf, its racial theories are not far from it.

Seth J. Frantzman

Kevin MacDonald's scholarly practices fall well below the standard usually expected of academic discourse. He consistently mispreresents source materials to bolster his thesis, by, for instance, omitting data that explicitly falsifies his arguments. Readers predisposed to believe in Jewish conspiracies will welcome MacDonald's Judaism books; fitted out as they are with all the trappings of scientific research, these books mark a noteworthy development in the recent history of antisemitic discourse. Readers interested in questions of research ethics will find MacDonald an interesting case study in how a predetermined agenda can result in hopelessly perverted scholarship.
As a general rule, none of MacDonald's citations ought to be accepted at face value; he simply cannot be trusted to report accurately on what his sources say. The frequent paraphrases or short summaries of source materials in particular need to be treated as red flags, indicating the high probability of serious distortion in the reading of the source that "supports" MacDonald's (fore-ordained) conclusion.

This book takes things out of perspective. Just as a book with the following titles would (just replace Jewish with any of the options mentioned):

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of African Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of German Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Catholic Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

It just so happens Jews are the ones who would sell the most books (code: why would Hitler (and so many other leaders) do so many awful things to Jews if they didn't deserve it? There must be something about these people... In the back of many people's minds we wonder such things as we don't want to think such things can happen to people who don't deserve it. Also, are the things I've heard about Jews true? Can they out smart me? And if you hear something enough times you start to think there is some truth to it.
While there are some things to consider here, don't just take his word for it. If jews could take over the world wouldn't they have done it by now? The truth is that he takes advantage of people's ignorance. Jews are democrats, some republican. S Education is generally part of the culture so that's why they might be represented disproportionately in professions like doctors or lawyers that require much education. There is not, and has never been a conspiracy among all jews. Things have to be placed in a context. At one time we though the world was flat. Many Americans did not believe women should vote or that it was okay to have slaves. would it be better to go back to the dark ages? The control of the church would insure the control over "deviants?" Ideas spread like wildflower, but like a flower they either die or come back each year as they stand the test of time.

For the last century or two, people have wondered why European Jews, and their descendants in the Americas, were so successful. As Mark Twain wrote in 1899: "If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race….Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk….What is the secret of his immortality?" Mark Twain's answer, anticipating the answer we get from behavioral genetics, was that "Jews have the best average brain of any people in the world.”

Kevin MacDonald's answer is that Jews evolved high intelligence as part of an "evolutionary strategy" to dominate non-Jews. His reasoning is thoroughly unconvincing. Rather than making risky predictions (a hallmark of science), MacDonald vacillates between refusing to acknowledge evidence against his view and changing his view to turn any possible evidence against his view into evidence for it (a hallmark of pseudoscience). For example, he emphasizes left-wing Jews who have lead subversive political movements, like communism, but skips over the many right-wing Jews who also lead movements in favor of capitalism or nationalism (one might recall that Hitler accused the Jews of being both greedy capitalists and weak-kneed socialists, so Kmac's strategy is hardly original).

Similarly, in more recent internet postings, MacDonald focuses on neo-Conservative Jews who advocated America's invasion of Iraq (which Kmac opposed) but never mentions the fact that all of the major decision-makers (Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc) were not Jewish. Kmac discusses leftist intellectual movements like the Frankfurt School in Europe as being led by Jews, but then fails to acknowledge that their fiercest critics were Jewish (e.g. Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn).

On occasion, MacDonald confronts what appears to be evidence against his view. For example, the fact that most American Jews marry non-Jews and express indifference to their religion seems to be decisive evidence against his view that Jews are especially ethnocentric. Yet MacDonald's response is that Jews are self-deceived about their true motivations (not exactly a scientifically testable statement). MacDonald's tactics are strikingly similar to those employed by the radical left. When a leftist is confronted with the view that computer programmers are more likely to be men than women, in part because of biological differences, a typical response is that the person making the claim of biological differences suffers from *unconscious* misogyny. Similar patterns are repeated by Kmac throughout the Culture of Critique.

Part of the reason this book has gained a cult following is that MacDonald was a tenured professor and has an ability to write compelling prose. He uses just enough scientific jargon to seem more credible than some of the crazier conspiracy theories from a century ago. He also exploits the fact that many academics refuse to discuss evidence for group differences. This self-censorship in the academy has serious consequences for people who want to study group differences. But it also enables pernicious pseudo-science by creating the illusion that anti-Semites like Kevin MacDonald possess secret knowledge. Sadly, that's more of an indictment against the modern academy than an argument for believing Kmac's theory.

For an early critique of MacDonald, see John Derbyshire, "The Marx of the Anti-Semites." For a decisive critique of MacDonald, see Nathan Cofnas, "Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy." It is published in a top anthropology journal, and is available with no subscription. Anyone with an open mind is advised to read Kmac's critics carefully, and decide for themselves who is more credible.

MacDonald spent a lot of time adopting and practicing the very ideas that he "critiques". He is clearly an opponent of nepotism, patronage, tribalism, collectivism, irrationality, and group-think. In fact, you can almost imagine by reading this that he might even be an anti-determinist—by suspending all rational thought, that is. But in fact, MacDonald's "Jew" is every elitist that I've met around the world. From every corner of the globe, there are and always have been people who would rather swim with the current, than stand as individual men. And of course, it is often the Jew who gets singled out and blamed for the ills of human civilization (not always though--depends on the location). And please forgive me if I find it a wee insulting to those who may not be Jewish, that we accept the presupposition of implied intellectual inferiority that MacDonald's treatise implies. It is historically false and genetically, ridiculous.

In fact, if Jews are anything, they are a metaphor for the West's great individualists and intellectuals. They are our "Greeks", so to speak. And it is not without irony, that I noticed several of MacDonald's champions fighting against the reading of Aristotle and other Greco-Roman thinkers online. In fact, I came across Mr. MacDonald for this very reason. Shocked as I was, that such a thing could exist. And yet, there was the so-called AltRight. The intellectual step-child of MacDonald's theory of Innate Ideas.

Back to the Jews. They stood up to polytheism, authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, etc., throughout the ages. And while I disagree with the group identity idea point blank—and consider this concept destructive to man and his mind, MacDonald's "solution" or rather, the implication thereof is much worse than the proper cure, which is simply rational individualism. Or as the Americans and their founders used to call it, Classical Liberalism. Or enlightenment philosophy. Or Voltaire's common sense.

In recent years, MacDonald's ideas have sparked a new breed of National Socialists, race-realists and JQ obsessing fan-boys who have "red-pilled" on his reverse Marxist-Marxist ideology. And while I agree with some of his estimation regarding the negatives of tribalism as it applies to Jews or any group on earth that exists, I do not subscribe to the genetic and/or evolutionary determinist viewpoint that by MacDonald advocates for. In fact, I believe that it is the height of irrationality to ascribe qualities of personality to the collective DNA of one's ancestors. And the scientific evidence does not support these views in the slightest.

Moreover, many of us that are not part of the "cult" that he's seemingly identified, discover quite easily that we too may carry the hated Ashkenazi genes (in my case). Shall I cut 14% of my left arm off to avoid being evolutionarily determined to trouble-make wherever I go?

The whole thing is so much rubbish.

I'm sorry. But you do not fight an evil by adopting and practicing it. If there is an evil here, it is the idea espoused that MAN is NOT the content of his character, actions and ideas. MacDonald would have us regress to the point of being herded like animals once more.

No doubt, he is quite brilliant. He has a keen mind. And a keener sense of emotion when conflating and connecting dots that don't quite go together. It's a truly brilliant mess that he's constructed here.

No doubt that secular Jews on average worship Critical Theory and Marxism—whether they know it or not. Ben Shapiro made that perfectly evident as have other libertarians and like-minded thinkers. But MacDonald negates man's ability to be objective and rather, shoves us into a zoo of estimation and identification based on skin, tribe and the very collectivism that he decries amongst tribalist, Marxist Jews...of whom there are many...but NOT all who self-identify with this DNA strand. Moreover, what of the millions of us who have the genes and don't care at all for the tribe that supposedly goes along with them?

And what of the CQ? What of the 50% of the so-called white or so-called Christian European population that believe in and advocate for those same Marxist collectivist tribalist ideas? Are they too under the spell of the Jew or are they just intellectually impotent? And we can thank St Thomas for being one of the very few to have a working brain, in our history.

If MacDonald sought to identify the evil that exists within tribalist, collectivist cultures, Jewish or otherwise—he could have done so. But that wasn't the goal. The achievement here is to attach a theory to the reason why some very smart people do or believe very bad things, and pretend that this is germane and specific to a DNA strand. As if man was the determined like a little-trained dog.

MacDonald is a scholar of sorts. But not a gentleman. And not worthy of the Western tradition that Aquinas, Abelard, Voltaire, Lock, Smith, Jefferson, Rand, Clark, Barzun, Adler and others have laid before him. I feel nothing but shame after reading this book. For him. For the West. And for the intellectual children of MacDonald, who send tweets of gas chamber memes over twitter, thinking that they are fighting his fight. And they are.

P.S. Despite the spelling errors caused by the drunken rage that I wrote this in, I am still proud of it. Plus some of my best work in University was completed while under the influence. Three cheers for McGill!

The author seems to have done much research, but he also seems to have fallen into the deductive trap of "after the fact, therefore because of the fact". That Jews are successful in many fields of endeavor does not mean that they have arranged with each other to succeed for the purpose of advancing "Jewish interests".

Someone who disliked, for example, men of Anglo-Saxon origin or members of any of several other groups, could easily find source material to make a much stronger case that people of some other group have networked with each other in order to advance various philosophies and institutions which benefit their interests.

Accordingly, I cannot help but wonder why the author has picked out--picked on--the Jews. Could it be because Jews have traditionally been the scapegoats for whom the discontented blame almost every intellectual idea or social or political philosophy with which they disagree?

Hard core, right wing anti-Semitic pseudo-critical racism in the form of what people refer to as evolutionary psychology. What ought to be subject to critique is not the victims and/ or objects of racism, sexism, hatred and phobias as to why "they" are such targets, but the pathology of the racists, anti-Semites, sexists and ethno-phobic, as to why "they" believe themselves to need this form of hatred and blame in order to maintain their self-concept as beyond the range of the defects they project and attach to their imagined Others. We should be fierce in standing up to that which is monstrous in humans, the "inhumanity" that sits like potential energy in all humans; but is most toxic and dangerous in those who are blind to it and make believe they are humanity's betters.

There is something extraordinarily obvious about the dangerousness of deploying evolutionary psychology as THE explanation for why things are: particularly when the valid understandings of modern day psychoanalytical views - object relations theory, interpersonal forces etc - impose upon us emotional limits that make reacting to the world in any other way than the way that helps us survive, as difficult.

In short, an evolutionary perspective begins and stops at this: the mind does what it needs to do to survive. Beyond that, as this exceedingly arrogant professor shows, you fall into one psychoanalysts legitimately call "splitting": an overly harsh and overly linear explanation for what in fact is complex and GREY.

Here, with this book, is an arrogant and self righteous attempt to cast Jews as acting as they did as if it were their design. What he fails to acknowledge are the relational forces of history and how being felt and regarded as 'different' for so long, by Jews and by Gentiles, Jews both sufferred with the shame of being an 'outsider', as well as - as all humans beings are wont to do in this sort of context - deflecting and defending against the shame by splitting gentiles into "goyim" (used in a deprecatory way) and highlighting what makes Jews special and particular.

There is really nothing of the kind Madonald imagines that he sees; there's no secret 'drive' or competitive need; in fact, the difference between fact and reality is the difference between the human need for ACCEPTANCE (cooperation) versus Defense i.e competition. In my mind, the Jewish people have been stuck in something that has good and bad aspects; being a victim again and again of arguably more war-like people, Romans, Christians, Muslims, had left them more focused on inward pursuits. On the other hand, there was a habit to enjoy ones insularity; to resent, as all victims do, the shame of being made "other". On one side, they developed a keen moral awareness; on the other side, they prevented their integration with larger non-Jewish culture by stubbornly holding to jewish/non jewish distinctions in otherwise petty areas.

The point in this review is that Macdonalds analysis DOES, at a basic fundamental level - in terms of his pathological orientation - reek of antisemtism. The big question is, WHY? Is he even aware of his antisemitism? Or, conversely, is he so blind to such obviously true ideas like 'projection' to the ill feelings he has when Jews pop into his mind.

While evolutionary psychology can be used to explain basic concepts that are crucially important, I think he has crossed-over by trying to explain antisemitism as the fault of the Jews; and not, as a more fair and balanced and self-aware persective endorses, a bi-directional consequence of contextual enforcements between Jewish behavior and Gentile behavior.

This book pins the blame on Jews in a way that is very, very, unjustified; extremely biased, and frankly, embarrassing. I would never want my name attached to a book with this sort of hatred implicated throughout.

Lest anyone be deceived by this man's pseudo-academic credentials, let it be known that he has just formed his own White Aryan organization in Long Beach, Calif.
And Huffington Post just did an expose on his thinly disguised bigotry.

Amazing that this book is hailed as a courageous diatribe on a "taboo" subject. As if Anti-Semitism is a taboo subject.
According to many who are inspired by this man's books, as is overtly clear from reading the reviews, Jews are undeservedly portrayed as victims ad nauseum and unduly powerful and dominate the Media and American politics.
This man's pseudo-scholarly writings are really forms of hate speech in disguise and all of them without exception are obsessed with Jewish influence in social and political affairs.

Also amazing is that he could hold a position at a University.

I have submitted a complaint to the store that a small group of individuals using different computers probably are gaming the store and its customers by ganging up on reviews and comments they don't like.
I have told them why I think there are clear indications of this going on regarding the reviews of all of MacDonald's books.
His followers in the store reviews go so far as to praise Hitler, Luther and David Duke, who MacDonald discusses favorably, and even attribute the anti-war, hippie and gay rights movements to Jews.

Notice the near unanimity of opinion on the "genius" of MacDonald.
Unfortunately the store has censored several comments due to its policy of accepting customers' opinions of certain comments because they are "unhelpful" according to these customers.
I have asked them to discontinue this practice unless such comments are clearly abusive.

I learned of MacDonald when an Anti-Semite friend I know sent me an article of his which was part of a series about "Jewish Influence" in the Neo Con Movement.
I had never heard of him nor ever even had any particular passion on this subject.
In it MacDonald implies the whole thing was hatched by Jews.
They just recruited Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, the U.S. Military, Christian Islamaphobic Fundamentalists and other dupes (like Romney and Ryan currently) according to MacDonald, though he disguises this belief somewhat in the form of an academic paper with copious footnotes.
I would submit that aggressive foreign policy is a hallmark of Republican politicians in general, and the Jewish Neocons, though undoubtedly ideologically aligned with them, were recruited primarily as a cynical cover for their imperialist designs and that they knew the despised Jewish NeoCons would divert attacks on them.

How else can you explain the fact that today there is only one Jewish REPUBLICAN congressman out of almost 300?
Jews have been stereotypically shunned as out of the mainstream of Christian values in the Republican party from Nixon to Buchanon to much of Middle America.

In some of this man's books he refers to the "Frankfurt School" - code for Jewish Marxists and Communists and generally the Leftists that permeate politics he dislikes.
But since his politics are decidedly extreme Right Wing, he decides NOT to mention the Austrian School of Economics, initiated by Hayek, a non-Jew, but who attracted Jewish followers of some prominence at the University of Chicago. This doctrine was extolled by Ronald Reagan and all Supply Side Republicans since. Ron Paul is particularly fond of this school, which gave us Reagan's chief economic advisor the influential Jew Milton Friedman.

Just to give you a taste of the calibre of this man's contributions to historical research, here is his theory of why the Jews have "the highest IQ of any group":
For centuries the rabbis have been plotting future domination of the world by genetically engineering intellectual superiority by marrying off the smartest geekiest men to the most desirable women.
Just one of many of their nefarious plots that have come to fruition.

This book is for anti-semites and other hateful individuals. It is also propaganda for lost people, poorly educated people, and for curious people. If you are curious regarding Jewish history in the course of world history, read a real history like Chaim Potok's "History of the Jews" or Paul Johnson's "A History of the Jews."