The Culture of Critique

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
QUOTE
In my country [ Colombia ] there are very few Jews, apparently not even 10.000 in a population of 42.000.000, so it was very easy to grow up without being aware of their existence. However, they were very much present as I was growing up. The comic books heroes I idolized as a boy were mostly Jewish creations: Superman (Siegel and Schuster), Batman (Kane), the Fantastic Four (Lee and Kirby), Spiderman (Lee and Ditko). So were one's favorite comedians, like the Marx Brothers or the 3 Stooges. And let's not even mention movies or Saturday morning cartoons. As I grew up I became aware that many important thinkers and scientists were Jewish, that many Jews won Nobel prizes (49 so far in Medicine, 27 in Chemistry, 20 in Economics, 44 in Physics). Let's keep in mind that there are probably no more than 15 million Jews. No one else can beat those numbers. I also learned that many were very rich. Peculiarly, it was also true that many Jews had been at the forefront of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European offshoots, and that many also had been part of the counterculture, and not just in the USA. But anytime anyone said something that might be construed as disparaging of Jews, they presented a united front, and fought back. Jews appeared smarter, more motivated and more cohesive than anyone else. But many matters were hard to explain: how could Jews be over-represented both among the plutocrats and the revolutionaries? It did seem like a Nazi slander to accuse them of both. Why was it that even as data supported the view that Jews were smarter than others (i.e., Murray and Herrnstein), important Jewish scientists wrote in opposition to this (i.e. Gould, Lewontin, Pinker)? And just why were there so many Jews involved in progressive causes all over the world, such as contraception, abortion rights, black and minority rights and free immigration?

I had no answer to these questions until I read this book. MacDonald's thesis is as follows: human action is mostly defined by competition for scarce resources. In this competition, who's in one's group and who's not is a very important issue, because people are more likely to be altruistic towards those who belong rather than those who don't. Once people move beyond the extended families common to hunter-gatherers, the in-group will be defined by ethnicity, which in turn will mean race. People who are ethnically similar are more likely to be related than those who are dissimilar, and are also more likely to share genes. Hence, in-group solidarity is justified from an evolutionary advantage perspective. Through history, Jews have been better than others are retaining their collective identity mainly through refusing absorption by other groups, a very difficult result to obtain during many millennia of various diasporae [ spreadings out ]. This they have done by giving high priority to the survival of the Jewish ethnicity, while attempting to prevent other groups achieving similar levels of collective action by delegitimizing their right to do so. The Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, the Greeks and the Romans tried to assimilate them, but without success. This was attempted later by the various European kingdoms (particularly the Spanish), the Russians and the Americans, who again failed. Each time the host society developed strong collectivistic views around ethnic categories the result was anti-Semitism and persecution (Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand, Russia with the Czars and at the time of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, Germany under Hitler, even the US during the "Red Scare" -1920s- and at the height of the Cold War -1950s-). The Jewish reaction was to conceive and communicate highly compelling worldviews in which the categories of Jewish v. gentile are weakened or where traditional rallying points such as Christianity or patriotism are dismantled (such as Communism or psychoanalysis), or where even the very existence of ethnic differentiations of any sort is rejected and all intergroup variations are attributed to environmental factors (such as in Boasian Anthropology). Eventually even the possibility of universal concepts is rejected (as explicitly argued by the Frankfurt School) and all reality is subject to corrosive criticism that leaves nothing standing (as in Derridian deconstructivism). MacDonald reviews extensively these intellectual movements and shows how they were led by individuals who thought of themselves as Jews (mostly not as members of a religion, but of an ethnicity), and shows that they generally pursued a "party line", which was to preserve the right of Jews to continue to exist and prosper as such, while denying other groups the right to oppose them, by delegitimizing and even by pathologizing them.

How did Jews come to these behaviours? In this book MacDonald does not explain it, but he suggests that there was no need for some hidden cabal to establish and implement a plan. All that was required was strong ethnic identification along with the realization that a clever, powerful minority who refuses to be assimilated will attract antipathy from others and might eventually be harmed. Hence, the development of arguments that eliminate the legitimacy for such reaction would be a reasonable response. This might explain how Jews can both be a very rich and powerful group (because they are more intelligent, highly motivated and capable of collective action than others) and also an enemy of the status quo (because it is a good strategy to weaken traditional institutions around which ethnocentric feelings have clustered in the past, such as Christianity, both protestant and catholic or patriotism). In any event, it is indisputable that Jewish presence was paramount among early Russian Bolsheviks, among Eastern European communists, among early mentors of the civil rights movement, among proponents of unrestricted immigration, among countercultural heavyweights and among the radical intelligentsia. And it is also indisputable that Jews are a leading force in media, finance and law. These are verifiable facts. That Jewish leaders worked very hard to change the ethnic composition of several countries (such as the USA, Canada or Australia) is well-known because they themselves have said so, that they were successful is a fact, and that this has weakened the status (political, economic, cultural) of traditional WASP elites is indisputable. That the fragmentation of fairly homogeneous societies would be to be benefit of well-organized minorities able to keep themselves apart is also very likely.

Particularly interesting to this reader was how the Frankfurt School pathologized the same attributes that make any group good at internal solidarity and external competition, such as a strong work ethic, identification with shared values and committed parenting. These traits among gentiles were seen as conducive to a fascist mindset, whereas among Jews their legitimacy is taken for granted and never discussed. It was also fascinating to learn that Jewish authors of published papers are much more likely to quote other Jews rather than gentiles. I don't know if this is the case, but somebody should look it up because it is interesting. Further, according to MacDonald, neo-conservatism is an attempt by [ allegedly ] former Jewish radicals to influence American domestic and foreign policy to make it harmonize with Jewish interests. This is not easy to refute and in fact recent authoritative books say so. [ See e.g. The Israel Lobby - Editor ]

It is indeed possible to carry this arguments too far away and to fall into a conspiracy theory mindset. But MacDonald doesn't do so and he always grounds his opinions in the facts. Clearly, he believes that Jews are too powerful, and that they are steering the US too far from its own interest as a country. But he merely describes the situation, he does not suggest ways to address it. He does fear that eventually this situation might lead to a resurgence of anti-Semitism (as has been seen in Europe) and ethnic strife, which he clearly believes are undesirable outcomes. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that competition for scarce resources among Jews and others (especially in the Mideast) is an important source of political instability and violence in today's world. Not the only one, but a significant one. While it is surely not the case that Jews have caused events such as the Afghanistan and Iran wars, it is true that well-known people of that ethnic persuasion have been instrumental in the decisions leading to them, and that these actions benefit the situation of their co-religionists in Israel.

I don't know if the author's views are correct from a scientific viewpoint, but it is a compelling theory. It is consistent with observed facts and with actual human behaviour, which is much more oriented to ethnic differentiation than to universal identification irrespective of efforts by many people. It also explains many things that otherwise would remain obscure. I do not think the book is anti-Semitic, or conducive to anti-Semitism, as some have said. It describes one group's strategies to pursue its own interests. That is surely legitimate, as it is legitimate to analyze it. While one must sympathize with Jewish concerns about this type or arguments giving legitimacy to persecution and violence against them, surely people also owe a duty to the truth and are entitled to their own opinions. Silencing reasonable lines of enquiry with appeals to common interests or to historical catastrophes is just preaching to the choir. People who don't already buy into such arguments will not be moved by them. Instead of calling into question MacDonald's motivations, or the possible consequences of his books, those who disagree should show he is wrong, or dispute the facts he quotes.

I give the book 4 stars because it has a few irritating typos that shouldn't turn up in an academic book. "Principle"... Read more ›
UNQUOTE
It is rather long. It is also one of many favourable reviews. The hostile reviews are worth a look. Short on fact, long on innuendo is their approach.