UNDERSTANDING JEWISH INFLUENCE I:BACKGROUND TRAITS FOR JEWISH ACTIVISM
KEVIN MACDONALD

ABSTRACT
Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained aposition of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish
background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence andwealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on
ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism in its historical, anthropological,
and evolutionary context and in its relation to three critical psychologicalprocesses: moral particularism, self-deception, and the powerful Jewish
tendency to coalesce into exclusionary, authoritarian groups under conditionsof perceived threat.

Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies inwhich they reside because of several qualities that are central to Judaism asa group evolutionary strategy: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentricand able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also
important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence inattaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic
world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that havereceived less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness.
The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychologicalintensity, and aggressiveness result in Jews being able to produce formidable,
effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on thepeoples they live among. In the modern world, these traits influence the academic
world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish
effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, Jews have repeatedly
become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficientnumbers. It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central
to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathersin the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in theWest. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes andlegislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive
reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews.1 Jews who
had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in6Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain,
Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, theInquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and politicaldomination of these “New Christians.”2Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century.
Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created theSoviet Union, and they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until at least
the post-World War II era. They were an important focus of National Socialism inGermany, and they have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and ethnic
revolution in the United States, including the encouragement of massive nonwhite immigration to countries of European origins.3 In the contemporary world,
organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in theBush administration and the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policythat is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world.
How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of the West?
This article is the first of a three-part series on Jewish influence which seeks to answer
that question. This first paper in the series provides an introduction to Jewish
ethnocentrism and other background traits that influence Jewish success. The second
article discusses Zionism as the quintessential example of twentieth-century Jewish
ethnocentrism and as an example of a highly influential Jewish intellectual/politicalmovement. A broader aim will be to discuss a generalization about Jewish history: thatin the long run the more extreme elements of the Jewish community win out anddetermine the direction of the entire group. As Jonathan Sacks points out, it is thecommitted core—made up now especially of highly influential and vigorous Jewish
activist organizations in the United States and hypernationalist elements in Israel—that
determines the future direction of the community.4 The third and final article will discuss
neoconservatism as a Jewish intellectual and political movement. Although I touchedon neoconservatism in my trilogy on Jews,5 the present influence of this movement on
U.S. foreign policy necessitates a much fuller treatment.
The four background traits—discussed in more detail below—are ethnocentrism,
intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness. These traits are seen as
underlying Jewish success in producing focused, effective groups able to influence thepolitical process and the wider culture. In the modern world, Jewish influence on politics
and culture is channeled through the media and through elite academic institutions into
an almost bewildering array of areas—far too many to consider here.

JEWS ARE HYPERETHNOCENTRIC
Elsewhere I have argued that Jewish hyperethnocentrism can be traced
back to their Middle Eastern origins.6 Traditional Jewish culture has a numberof features identifying Jews with the ancestral cultures of the area. The mostimportant of these is that Jews and other Middle Eastern cultures evolved undercircumstances that favored large groups dominated by males.7 These groups werebasically extended families with high levels of endogamy (i.e., marriage within theSummer 2003 /MacDonald

7

kinship group) and consanguineous marriage (i.e., marriage to blood relatives),
including the uncle-niece marriage sanctioned in the Old Testament. These features areexactly the opposite of Western European tendencies (See Table 1 on next page).8
Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish culturalform is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and groupboundaries. Middle Eastern societies are characterized by anthropologists as“segmentary societies” organized into relatively impermeable, kinship-based groups.9
EUROPEAN CULTURAL ORIGINSJEWISH CULTURAL ORIGINS_________________________________________________________________
Evolutionary History

Northern Hunter-Gatherers

Middle Old World Pastoralists(Herders)

Kinship System

Bilateral; Weakly Patricentric

Unilineal; Strongly Patricentric

Family System

Simple Household

Extended Family;
Joint Household

Marriage Practices

Exogamous; Monogamous

Endogamous; Consanguineous;
Polygynous

Marriage Psychology

Companionate; Based on
Mutual Consent and Affection

Utilitarian; Based on Family
Strategizing and Control of
Kinship Group

Position of Women

Relatively High

Relatively Low

Social Structure

Individualistic; Republican;
Democratic

Collectivistic; Authoritarian
Charismatic LeadersEthnocentrism

Relatively Low

Relatively High;“Hyper-ethnocentrism”

Xenophobia

Relatively Low

Relatively High;“Hyper-xenophobia”

Socialization

Stresses Independence,
Self-Reliance

Stresses Ingroup Identification,
Obligations to Kinship GroupIntellectual StanceReason; Science

Dogmatism; Submission to
Ingroup Authority andCharismatic LeadersMoral Stance

Moral Universalism: Morality
Is Independent of Group

Moral Particularism;
Ingroup/Outgroup Morality; Is
it good for the Jews?

_________________________________________________________________TABLE 1: CONTRASTS BETWEEN EUROPEAN AND JEWISH CULTURAL FORMS.

8

Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental QuarterlyGroup boundaries are often reinforced through external markers such as
hair style or clothing, as Jews have often done throughout their history.
Different groups settle in different areas where they retain their homogeneity
alongside other homogeneous groups, as illustrated by the following accountfrom Carleton Coon:
There the ideal was to emphasize not the uniformity of the citizens of a country as
a whole but a uniformity within each special segment, and the greatest possible
contrast between segments. The members of each ethnic unit feel the need to
identify themselves by some configuration of symbols. If by virtue of their history
they possess some racial peculiarity, this they will enhance by special haircuts
and the like; in any case they will wear distinctive garments and behave in a
distinctive fashion.10

These societies are by no means blissful paradises of multiculturalism.
Between-group conflict often lurks just beneath the surface. For example, innineteenth-century Turkey, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in a sort ofsuperficial harmony, and even inhabited the same areas, “but the slightest
spark sufficed to ignite the fuse.”11
Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward
hypercollectivism and hyperethnocentrism. I give many examples of Jewish
hyperethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism and have suggested in several
places that Jewish hyperethnocentrism is biologically based.12 Middle Eastern
ethnocentrism and fanaticism has struck a good many people as extreme,
including William Hamilton, perhaps the most important evolutionary
biologist of the twentieth century. Hamilton writes:
I am sure I am not the first to have wondered what it is about that part of the worldthat feeds such diverse and intense senses of rectitude as has created three of theworlds’ most persuasive and yet most divisive and mutually incompatible
religions. It is hard to discern the root in the place where I usually look for roots ofour strong emotions, the part deepest in us, our biology and evolution.13

Referring to my first two books on Judaism, Hamilton then notes that “evena recent treatise on this subject, much as I agree with its general theme, seems
to me hardly to reach to this point of the discussion.” If I failed to go far enoughin describing or analyzing Jewish ethnocentrism, it is perhaps because thesubject seems almost mind-bogglingly deep, with psychological ramifications
everywhere. As a pan-humanist, Hamilton was acutely aware of theramifications of human ethnocentrism and especially of the Jewish variety.
Likening Judaism to the creation of a new human species, Hamilton noted thatfrom a humanist point of view, were those “species” the Martian thought to see inthe towns and villages a millennium or so ago a good thing? Should we have let
their crystals grow; do we retrospectively approve them? As by growth innumbers by land annexation, by the heroizing of a recent mass murderer of Arabs[i.e., Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Arabs, including children, at the
Patriarch’s Cave in Hebron in 1994), and by the honorific burial accorded to a
publishing magnate (Robert Maxwell), who had enriched Israel partly by his

Summer 2003 /MacDonald9swindling of his employees, most of them certainly not Jews, some Israelis seem tofavour a “racewise” and unrestrained competition, just as did the ancient
Israelites and Nazi Germans. In proportion to the size of the country and thedegree to which the eyes of the world are watching, the acts themselves thatbetray this trend of reversion from panhumanism may seem small as yet, but thespirit behind them, to this observer, seems virtually identical to trends that havelong predated them both in humans and animals.14

A good start for thinking about Jewish ethnocentrism is the work of Israel
Shahak, most notably his co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.15 Presentday fundamentalists attempt to re-create the life of Jewish communities before the
Enlightenment (i.e., prior to about 1750). During this period the great majority ofJews believed in Cabbala—Jewish mysticism. Influential Jewish scholars like
Gershom Scholem ignored the obvious racialist, exclusivist material in the Cabbala
by using words like “men,” “human beings,” and “cosmic” to suggest the Cabbala
has a universalist message. The actual text says salvation is only for Jews, while
non-Jews have “Satanic souls.”16
The ethnocentrism apparent in such statements was not only the norm in
traditional Jewish society, but remains a powerful current of contemporary
Jewish fundamentalism, with important implications for Israeli politics. For
example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson,
describing the difference between Jews and non-Jews:
We do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on asuperior level. Rather we have a case of . . . a totally different species. . . . The bodyof a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of allnations of the world . . . The difference of the inner quality [of the body] . . . is so
great that the bodies would be considered as completely different species. This is
the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude
about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]: “their bodies arein vain”. . . . An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary
types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while theJewish soul stems from holiness.17

This claim of Jewish uniqueness echoes Holocaust activist Elie Wiesel’s
claim that “everything about us is different.” Jews are “ontologically”
exceptional.18
The Gush Emunim and other Jewish fundamentalist sects described by
Shahak and Mezvinsky are thus part of a long mainstream Jewish tradition
which considers Jews and non-Jews completely different species, with Jews
absolutely superior to non-Jews and subject to a radically different moral code.
Moral universalism is thus antithetical to the Jewish tradition in which thesurvival and interests of the Jewish people are the most important ethical goal:
Many Jews, especially religious Jews today in Israel and their supporters abroad,continue to adhere to traditional Jewish ethics that other Jews would like toignore or explain away. For example, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tombin Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were remanded on suspicion of

10Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

murdering a teenage Arab girl: “Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of agoy.” Rabbi Ido Elba: “According to the Torah, we are in a situation of pikuah
nefesh (saving a life) in time of war, and in such a situation one may kill any
Gentile.” Rabbi Yisrael Ariel writes in 1982 that “Beirut is part of the Land of
Israel. [This is a reference to the boundaries of Israel as stated in the Covenant
between God and Abraham in Genesis 15: 18–20 and Joshua 1 3–4] . . . our leaders
should have entered Lebanon and Beirut without hesitation, and killed every
single one of them. Not a memory should have remained.” It is usually yeshiva
students who chant “Death to the Arabs” on CNN. The stealing and corruption
by religious leaders that has recently been documented in trials in Israel andabroad continues to raise the question of the relationship between Judaism andethics.19

Moral particularism in its most aggressive form can be seen among theultranationalists, such as the Gush Emunim, who hold thatJews are not, and cannot be a normal people. The eternal uniqueness of the Jews
is the result of the Covenant made between God and the Jewish people at Mount
Sinai . . . . The implication is that the transcendent imperatives for Jews effectively
nullify moral laws that bind the behavior of normal nations. Rabbi Shlomo
Aviner, one of Gush Emunim’s most prolific ideologues, argues that the divine
commandments to the Jewish people “transcend the human notions of nationalrights.” He explains that while God requires other nations to abide by abstract
codes of justice and righteousness, such laws do not apply to Jews.20

As argued in the second paper in this series, it is the most extreme elements
within the Jewish community that ultimately give direction to the community
as a whole. These fundamentalist and ultranationalist groups are not tiny
fringe groups, mere relics of traditional Jewish culture. They are widely
respected by the Israeli public and by many Jews in the Diaspora. They have agreat deal of influence on the Israeli government, especially the Likud
governments and the recent government of national unity headed by Ariel
Sharon. The members of Gush Emunim constitute a significant percentage ofthe elite units of the Israeli army, and, as expected on the hypothesis that they
are extremely ethnocentric, they are much more willing to treat the Palestinians
in a savage and brutal manner than are other Israeli soldiers. All together, thereligious parties represent about 25% of the Israeli electorate21—a percentagethat is sure to increase because of the high fertility of religious Jews and because
intensified troubles with the Palestinians tend to make other Israelis more
sympathetic to their cause. Given the fractionated state of Israeli politics andthe increasing numbers of the religious groups, it is unlikely that future
governments can be formed without their participation. Peace in the Middle
East therefore appears unlikely absent the complete capitulation or expulsionof the Palestinians.
A good discussion of Jewish moral particularism can be found in a recent
article in Tikkun—probably the only remaining liberal Jewish publication. Kim
Chernin wonders why so many Jews “have trouble being critical of Israel.”22
She finds several obstacles to criticism of Israel:Summer 2003 /MacDonald11

1. A conviction that Jews are always in danger, always have been, and therefore arein danger now. Which leads to: 2. The insistence that a criticism is an attack and willlead to our destruction. Which is rooted in: 3. The supposition that any negativity
towards Jews (or Israel) is a sign of anti-Semitism and will (again, inevitably) lead toour destruction. . . . 6. An even more hidden belief that a sufficient amount ofsuffering confers the right to violence. . . . 7. The conviction that our beliefs, ourideology (or theology), matter more than the lives of other human beings.

Chernin presents the Jewish psychology of moral particularism:
We keep a watchful eye out, we read the signs, we detect innuendo, we summon
evidence, we become, as we imagine it, the ever-vigilant guardians of our people’s
survival. Endangered as we imagine ourselves to be; endangered as we insist weare, any negativity, criticism, or reproach, even from one of our own, takes on
exaggerated dimensions; we come to perceive such criticism as a life-threatening
attack. The path to fear is clear. But our proclivity for this perception is itself oneof our unrecognized dangers. Bit by bit, as we gather evidence to establish ourperilous position in the world, we are brought to a selective perception of thatworld. With our attention focused on ourselves as the endangered species, it
seems to follow that we ourselves can do no harm. . . . When I lived in Israel I
practiced selective perception. I was elated by our little kibbutz on the Lebaneseborder until I recognized that we were living on land that had belonged to our
Arab neighbors. When I didn’t ask how we had come to acquire that land, I
practiced blindness. . . .

The profound depths of Jewish ethnocentrism are intimately tied up witha sense of historical persecution. Jewish memory is a memory of persecution
and impending doom, a memory that justifies any response because ultimately
it is Jewish survival that is at stake:
Wherever we look, we see nothing but impending Jewish destruction. . . . I waswalking across the beautiful square in Nuremberg a couple of years ago andstopped to read a public sign. It told this story: During the Middle Ages, the town
governing body, wishing to clear space for a square, burned out, burned down,
and burned up the Jews who had formerly filled up the space. End of story. After
that, I felt very uneasy walking through the square and I eventually stopped
doing it. I felt endangered, of course, a woman going about through Germany
wearing a star of David. But more than that, I experienced a conspicuous anddreadful self-reproach at being so alive, so happily on vacation, now that I had
come to think about the murder of my people hundreds of years before. Afterreading that plaque I stopped enjoying myself and began to look for other signs
and traces of the mistreatment of the former Jewish community. If I had stayed
longer in Nuremberg, if I had gone further in this direction, I might soon havecome to believe that I, personally, and my people, currently, were threatened by
the contemporary Germans eating ice cream in an outdoor cafe in the square.
How much more potent this tendency for alarm must be in the Middle East, in the
middle of a war zone! . . .

Notice the powerful sense of history here. Jews have a very long historicalmemory. Events that happened centuries ago color their current perceptions.

12Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental QuarterlyThis powerful sense of group endangerment and historical grievance isassociated with a hyperbolic style of Jewish thought that runs repeatedly
through Jewish rhetoric. Chernin’s comment that “any negativity, criticism, or
reproach, even from one of our own, takes on exaggerated dimensions” isparticularly important. In the Jewish mind, all criticism must be suppressed
because not to do so would be to risk another Holocaust: “There is no such thingas overreaction to an anti-Semitic incident, no such thing as exaggerating theomnipresent danger. Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there weredangerous portents in American society hadn’t learned ‘the lesson of the
Holocaust.’ ”23 Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, a premierneoconservative journal published by the American Jewish Committee,
provides an example:[M]y own view is that what had befallen the Jews of Europe inculcated a
subliminal lesson. . . . The lesson was that anti-Semitism, even the relatively
harmless genteel variety that enforced quotas against Jewish students or kept
their parents from joining fashionable clubs or getting jobs in prestigious WallStreet law firms, could end in mass murder.24

This is a “slippery slope” argument with a vengeance. The schema is asfollows: Criticism of Jews indicates dislike of Jews; this leads to hostility towardJews, which leads to Hitler and eventually to mass murder. Therefore all
criticism of Jews must be suppressed. With this sort of logic, it is easy to dismiss
arguments about Palestinian rights on the West Bank and Gaza because “thesurvival of Israel” is at stake. Consider, for example, the following
advertisement distributed by neoconservative publicist David Horowitz:
The Middle East struggle is not about right versus right. It is about a fifty-year
effort by the Arabs to destroy the Jewish state, and the refusal of the Arab states ingeneral and the Palestinian Arabs in particular to accept Israel’s existence. . . . The
Middle East conflict is not about Israel’s occupation of the territories; it is about
the refusal of the Arabs to make peace with Israel, which is an expression of their
desire to destroy the Jewish state.25“Survival of Israel” arguments thus trump concerns about allocation of
scarce resources like water, the seizure of Palestinian land, collective
punishment, torture, and the complete degradation of Palestinian
communities into isolated, military-occupied, Bantustan-type enclaves. The
logic implies that critics of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza alsofavor the destruction of Israel and hence the mass murder of millions of Jews.
Similarly, during the debate over selling military hardware to Saudi Arabia
in the Carter administration, “the Israeli lobby pulled out all the stops,”
including circulating books to Congress based on the TV series The Holocaust.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main Jewish
lobbying group in Congress, included a note stating, “This chilling account of
the extermination of six million Jews underscores Israel’s concerns during thecurrent negotiations for security without reliance on outside guarantees.”26 In

Summer 2003 /MacDonald13

other words, selling AWACS reconnaissance planes to Saudi Arabia, abackward kingdom with little military capability, is tantamount to collusion in
the extermination of millions of Jews.
Jewish thinking about immigration into the U.S. shows the same logic.
Lawrence Auster, a Jewish conservative, describes the logic as follows:
The liberal notion that “all bigotry is indivisible” [advocated by Norman
Podhoretz] implies that all manifestations of ingroup/outgroup feeling are
essentially the same—and equally wrong. It denies the obvious fact that some
outgroups are more different from the ingroup, and hence less assimilable, andhence more legitimately excluded, than other outgroups. It means, for example,
that wanting to exclude Muslim immigrants from America is as blameworthy as
wanting to exclude Catholics or Jews.
Now when Jews put together the idea that “all social prejudice and exclusion
leads potentially to Auschwitz” with the idea that “all bigotry is indivisible,”they must reach the conclusion that any exclusion of any group, no matter how
alien it may be to the host society, is a potential Auschwitz.
So there it is. We have identified the core Jewish conviction that makes Jews keep
pushing relentlessly for mass immigration, even the mass immigration of theirdeadliest enemies. In the thought-process of Jews, to keep Jew-hating Muslims
out of America would be tantamount to preparing the way to another Jewish
Holocaust.27

The idea that any sort of exclusionary thinking on the part of Americans—and especially European Americans as a majority group—leads inexorably toa Holocaust for Jews is not the only reason why Jewish organizations still favormass immigration. I have identified two others as well: the belief that greater
diversity makes Jews safer and an intense sense of historical grievance against
the traditional peoples and culture of the United States and Europe.28 These
two sentiments also illustrate Jewish moral particularism because they fail toconsider the ethnic interests of other peoples in thinking about immigration
policy. Recently the “diversity-as-safety” argument was made by Leonard S.
Glickman, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish
group that has advocated open immigration to the United States for over a
century. Glickman stated, “The more diverse American society is the safer[Jews] are.”29 At the present time, the HIAS is deeply involved in recruiting
refugees from Africa to emigrate to the U.S.
The diversity as safety argument and its linkage to historical grievances against
European civilization is implicit in a recent statement of the Simon Wiesenthal
Center (SWC) in response to former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s
argument that Muslim Turkey has no place in the European Union:
Ironically, in the fifteenth century, when European monarchs expelled the Jews, it
was Moslem Turkey that provided them a welcome. . . . During the Holocaust,
when Europe was slaughtering its Jews, it was Turkish consuls who extended
protection to fugitives from Vichy France and other Nazi allies. . . . Today’s
European neo-Nazis and skinheads focus upon Turkish victims while, Mr.

14Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

President, you are reported to be considering the Pope’s plea that yourConvention emphasize Europe’s Christian heritage. [The Center suggested that
Giscard’s new Constitution] underline the pluralism of a multi-faith and multiethnic Europe, in which the participation of Moslem Turkey might bolster thecontinent’s Moslem communities—and, indeed, Turkey itself—against the
menaces of extremism, hate and fundamentalism. A European Turkey can only
be beneficial for stability in Europe and the Middle East.30

Here we see Jewish moral particularism combined with a profound sense ofhistorical grievance—hatred by any other name—against European civilization
and a desire for the end of Europe as a Christian civilization with its traditional
ethnic base. According to the SWC, the menaces of “extremism, hate andfundamentalism”—prototypically against Jews—can only be repaired byjettisoning the traditional cultural and ethnic basis of European civilization. Events
that happened five hundred years ago are still fresh in the minds of Jewish
activists—a phenomenon that should give pause to everyone in an age when Israel
has control of nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems.31
Indeed, a recent article on Assyrians in the U.S. shows that many Jews havenot forgiven or forgotten events of 2,700 years ago, when the Northern Israelite
kingdom was forcibly relocated to the Assyrian capital of Nineveh: “SomeAssyrians say Jews are one group of people who seem to be more familiar withthem. But because the Hebrew Bible describes Assyrians as cruel and ruthlessconquerors, people such as the Rev. William Nissan say he is invariably challenged
by Jewish rabbis and scholars about the misdeeds of his ancestors.”32
The SWC inveighs against hate but fails to confront the issue of hatred as anormative aspect of Judaism. Jewish hatred toward non-Jews emerges as aconsistent theme throughout the ages, beginning in the ancient world.33 The
Roman historian Tacitus noted that “Among themselves they are inflexibly honest
and ever ready to show compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind withall the hatred of enemies.34 The eighteenth-century English historian Edward
Gibbon was struck by the fanatical hatred of Jews in the ancient world:
From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce
impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the mostfurious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of thehorrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and ofCyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting
natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was
exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire andcredulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of
the Roman government, but of human kind.35

The nineteenth-century Spanish historian José Amador de los Rios wrote of
the Spanish Jews who assisted the Muslim conquest of Spain that “without any
love for the soil where they lived, without any of those affections that ennoble
a people, and finally without sentiments of generosity, they aspired only to feed
their avarice and to accomplish the ruin of the Goths; taking the opportunity

Summer 2003 /MacDonald15

to manifest their rancor, and boasting of the hatreds that they had hoarded up
so many centuries.”36 In 1913, economist Werner Sombart, in his classic Jews
and Modern Capitalism, summarized Judaism as “a group by themselves andtherefore separate and apart—this from the earliest antiquity. All nations werestruck by their hatred of others.”37
A recent article by Meir Y. Soloveichik, aptly titled “The virtue of hate,”
amplifies this theme of normative Jewish fanatical hatred.38 “Judaism believes
that while forgiveness is often a virtue, hate can be virtuous when one is dealing
with the frightfully wicked. Rather than forgive, we can wish ill; rather thanhope for repentance, we can instead hope that our enemies experience thewrath of God.” Soloveichik notes that the Old Testament is replete withdescriptions of horribly violent deaths inflicted on the enemies of theIsraelites—the desire not only for revenge but for revenge in the bloodiest, mostdegrading manner imaginable: “The Hebrew prophets not only hated theirenemies, but rather reveled in their suffering, finding in it a fitting justice.” In
the Book of Esther, after the Jews kill the ten sons of Haman, their persecutor,
Esther asks that they be hanged on a gallows.
This normative fanatical hatred in Judaism can be seen by the common use
among Orthodox Jews of the phrase yemach shemo, meaning, may his name beerased. This phrase is used “whenever a great enemy of the Jewish nation, of thepast or present, is mentioned. For instance, one might very well say casually,in the course of conversation, ‘Thank God, my grandparents left Germany
before Hitler, yemach shemo, came to power.’ Or: ‘My parents were murderedby the Nazis, yemach shemam.’”39 Again we see that the powerful consciousnessof past suffering leads to present-day intense hatred:
Another danger inherent in hate is that we may misdirect our odium atinstitutions in the present because of their past misdeeds. For instance, some of
my coreligionists reserve special abhorrence for anything German, even though
Germany is currently one of the most pro-Israel countries in Europe. Similarly,
after centuries of suffering, many Jews have, in my own experience, continued todespise religious Christians, even though it is secularists and Islamists who
threaten them today, and Christians should really be seen as their natural allies.
Many Jewish intellectuals and others of influence still take every assertion of thetruth of Christianity as an anti-Semitic attack. After the Catholic Church beatified
Edith Stein, a Jewish convert to Christianity, some prominent Jews asserted that
the Church was attempting to cover up its role in causing the Holocaust. And
then there is the historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, who essentially has asserted
that any attempt by the Catholic Church to maintain that Christianity is the onetrue faith marks a continuation of the crimes of the Church in the past. Burning
hatred, once kindled, is difficult to extinguish.

Soloveichik could also have included Jewish hatred toward the traditional
peoples and culture of the United States. This hatred stems from Jewish
memory of the immigration law of 1924, which is seen as having resulted in agreater number of Jews dying in the Holocaust because it restricted Jewish

16Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

immigration from Eastern Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Jews are also
acutely aware of widespread anti-Jewish attitudes in the U.S. prior to WorldWar II. The hatred continues despite the virtual disappearance of anti-Jewish
attitudes in the U.S. after World War II and despite the powerful ties between
the United States and Israel.40
Given the transparently faulty logic and obvious self-interest involved inarguments made by Jewish activists, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Jews
are often engaged in self-deception. In fact, self-deception is a very importantcomponent of Jewish moral particularism. I wrote an entire chapter on Jewish
self-deception in Separation and Its Discontents,41 but it was nowhere nearenough. Again, Kim Chernin:
Our sense of victimization as a people works in a dangerous and seditious way
against our capacity to know, to recognize, to name and to remember. Since wehave adopted ourselves as victims we cannot correctly read our own history let
alone our present circumstances. Even where the story of our violence is set
down in a sacred text that we pore over again and again, we cannot see it. Our
self-election as the people most likely to be victimized obscures rather thanclarifies our own tradition. I can’t count the number of times I read the story of
Joshua as a tale of our people coming into their rightful possession of theirpromised land without stopping to say to myself, “but this is a history of rape,plunder, slaughter, invasion and destruction of other peoples.” As such, it bears
an uncomfortably close resemblance to the behavior of Israeli settlers and theIsraeli army of today, a behavior we also cannot see for what it is. We are tracing
the serpentine path of our own psychology. We find it organized around a
persuasion of victimization, which leads to a sense of entitlement to enact
violence, which brings about an inevitable distortion in the way we perceive
both our Jewish identity and the world, and involves us finally in a tricky
relationship to language.

Political columnist Joe Sobran—who has suffered professionally forexpressing his opinions about Israel—exposes the moral particularism ofNorman Podhoretz, one of the chorus of influential Jewish voices who
advocate restructuring the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel:
Podhoretz has unconsciously exposed the Manichaean fantasy world of so manyof those who are now calling for war with Iraq. The United States and Israel are“good”; the Arab-Muslim states are “evil”; and those opposed to this war
represent “moral relativism,” ostensibly neutral but virtually on the side of“evil.” This is simply deranged. The ability to see evil only in one’s enemies isn’t“moral clarity.” It’s the essence of fanaticism. We are now being counseled tofight one kind of fanaticism with another. [My emphasis]

As Sobran notes, the moral particularism is unconscious—an example ofself-deception. The world is cut up into two parts, the good and the evil—
ingroup-outgroup—as it has been, for Jews, for well over two thousand years.
Recently Jared Taylor and David Horowitz got into a discussion which touchedon Jewish issues. Taylor writes:

Summer 2003 /MacDonald

17

Mr. Horowitz deplores the idea that “we are all prisoners of identity politics,”
implying that race and ethnicity are trivial matters we must work to overcome.
But if that is so, why does the home page of FrontPageMag carry a perpetualappeal for contributions to “David’s Defense of Israel Campaign”? Why Israel
rather than, say, Kurdistan or Tibet or Euskadi or Chechnya? Because Mr.
Horowitz is Jewish. His commitment to Israel is an expression of precisely thekind of particularist identity he would deny to me and to other racially-conscious
whites. He passionately supports a self-consciously Jewish state but calls it“surrendering to the multicultural miasma” when I work to return to a selfconsciously white America. He supports an explicitly ethnic identity for Israel
but says American must not be allowed to have one…. If he supports a Jewish
Israel, he should support a white America.42

Taylor is suggesting that Horowitz is self-deceived or inconsistent. It isinteresting that Horowitz was acutely aware of his own parents’ self-deception.
Horowitz’s description of his parents shows the strong ethnocentrism that lurked
beneath the noisy universalism of Jewish communists in mid-twentieth century
America. In his book, Radical Son, Horowitz describes the world of his parents who
had joined a “shul” (i.e., a synagogue) run by the Communist Party in which
Jewish holidays were given a political interpretation. Psychologically these people
might as well have been in eighteenth-century Poland, but they were completely
unaware of any Jewish identity. Horowitz writes:
What my parents had done in joining the Communist Party and moving toSunnyside was to return to the ghetto. There was the same shared private
language, the same hermetically sealed universe, the same dual posturing
revealing one face to the outer world and another to the tribe. More importantly,
there was the same conviction of being marked for persecution and speciallyordained, the sense of moral superiority toward the stronger and more
numerous goyim outside. And there was the same fear of expulsion for hereticalthoughts, which was the fear that riveted the chosen to the faith.43

Jews recreate Jewish social structure wherever they are, even when they arecompletely unaware they are doing so. When asked about their Jewish
commitments, these communists denied having any.44 Nor were they
consciously aware of having chosen ethnically Jewish spouses, although they
all married other Jews. This denial has been useful for Jewish organizations andJewish intellectual apologists attempting to de-emphasize the role of Jews on
the radical left in the twentieth century. For example, a common tactic of the
ADL beginning in the Red Scare era of the 1920s right up through the Cold War
era was to claim that Jewish radicals were no longer Jews because they had no
Jewish religious commitments.45
Non-Jews run the risk of failing to truly understand how powerful these
Jewish traits of moral particularism and self-deception really are. Whenconfronted with his own rabid support for Israel, Horowitz simply denies that
ethnicity has much to do with it; he supports Israel as a matter of principle—
his commitment to universalist moral principles—and he highlights therelationship between Israel and the West: “Israel is under attack by the same

18

Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

enemy that has attacked the United States. Israel is the point of origin for theculture of the West.”46 This ignores the reality that Israel’s treatment of thePalestinians is a major part of the reason why the United States was attacked
and is hated throughout the Arab world. It also ignores the fact that Westernculture and its strong strain of individualism are the antithesis of Judaism, andthat Israel’s Western veneer overlays the deep structure of Israel as anapartheid, ethnically based state.
It’s difficult to argue with people who cannot see or at least won’t
acknowledge the depths of their own ethnic commitments and continue to act
in ways that compromise the ethnic interests of others. People like Horowitz(and his parents) can’t see their ethnic commitments even when they are
obvious to everyone else. One could perhaps say the same of Charles
Krauthammer, William Safire, William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and thelegion of prominent Jews who collectively dominate the perception of Israelpresented by the U.S. media. Not surprisingly, Horowitz pictures the U.S. as aset of universal principles, with no ethnic content. This idea originated with
Jewish intellectuals, particularly Horace Kallen, almost a century ago at a time
when there was a strong conception that the United States was a European
civilization whose characteristics were racially/ethnically based.47 As we allknow, this world and its intellectual infrastructure have vanished, and I have
tried to show that the prime force opposing a European racial/ethnic
conception of the U.S. was a set of Jewish intellectual and political movementsthat collectively pathologized any sense of European ethnicity or European
ethnic interests.48
Given that extreme ethnocentrism continues to pervade all segments of theorganized Jewish community, the advocacy of the de-ethnicization ofEuropeans—a common sentiment in the movements I discuss in Culture of
Critique (CofC)—is best seen as a strategic move against peoples regarded ashistorical enemies. In Chapter 8 of CofC, I call attention to a long list of similar
double standards, especially with regard to the policies pursued by Israel versus
the policies Jewish organizations have pursued in the U.S. These policies
include church-state separation, attitudes toward multiculturalism, andimmigration policies favoring the dominant ethnic group. This double
standard is fairly pervasive. As noted throughout CofC, Jewish advocatesaddressing Western audiences have promoted policies that satisfy Jewish(particularist) interests in terms of the morally universalist language that is acentral feature of Western moral and intellectual discourse; obviously David
Horowitz’s rationalization of his commitment to Israel is a prime example ofthis.
A principal theme of CofC is that Jewish organizations played a decisive role in
opposing the idea that the United States ought to be a European nation. Nevertheless,these organizations have been strong supporters of Israel as a nation of the Jewish
people. Consider, for example, a press release of May 28, 1999, by the ADL:

Summer 2003 /MacDonald

19

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today lauded the passage of sweepingchanges in Germany’s immigration law, saying the easing of the nation’s once
rigorous naturalization requirements “will provide a climate for diversity andacceptance. It is encouraging to see pluralism taking root in a society that, despite
its strong democracy, had for decades maintained an unyielding policy of
citizenship by blood or descent only,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National
Director. “The easing of immigration requirements is especially significant inlight of Germany’s history of the Holocaust and persecution of Jews and otherminority groups. The new law will provide a climate for diversity andacceptance in a nation with an onerous legacy of xenophobia, where the conceptof ‘us versus them’ will be replaced by a principle of citizenship for all.”49

There is no mention of analogous laws in place in Israel restricting
immigration to Jews, or of the long-standing policy of rejecting the possibilityof repatriation for Palestinian refugees wishing to return to Israel or theoccupied territories. The prospective change in the “us versus them” attitude
alleged to be characteristic of Germany is applauded, while the “us versus
them” attitude characteristic of Israel and Jewish culture throughout history isunmentioned. Recently, the Israeli Ministry of Interior ruled that new
immigrants who have converted to Judaism will no longer be able to bring nonJewish family members into the country. The decision is expected to cut by half
the number of eligible immigrants to Israel. Nevertheless, Jewish organizations
continue to be strong proponents of multiethnic immigration to the UnitedStates while maintaining unquestioning support for Israel. This pervasive
double standard was noticed by writer Vincent Sheean in his observations ofZionists in Palestine in 1930: “how idealism goes hand in hand with the mostterrific cynicism; . . . how they are Fascists in their own affairs, with regard to
Palestine, and internationalists in everything else.”50 The right hand does notknow what the left is doing—self-deception writ large.
Jewish ethnocentrism is well founded in the sense that scientific studies
supporting the genetic cohesiveness of Jewish groups continue to appear. Most
notable of the recent studies is that of Michael Hammer and colleagues.51 Basedon Y-chromosome data, Hammer et al. conclude that 1 in 200 matings within
Jewish communities were with non-Jews over a 2000-year period.
Because of their intense ethnocentrism, Jews tend to have great rapport with eachother—an important ingredient in producing effective groups. One way to understandthis powerful attraction for fellow ethnic group members is J. Philippe Rushton’s Genetic
Similarity Theory.52 According to GST, people are attracted to others who are geneticallysimilar to themselves. One of the basic ideas of evolutionary biology is that people are
expected to help relatives because they share similar genes. When a father helps a childor an uncle helps a nephew, he is really also helping himself because of their close genetic
relationship. (Parents share half their genes with their children; uncles share one-fourthof their genes with nieces and nephews.53) GST extends this concept to non-relatives byarguing that people benefit when they favor others who are genetically similar to themeven if they are not relatives.

20

Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

GST has some important implications for understanding cooperation andcohesiveness among Jews. It predicts that people will be friendlier to otherpeople who are genetically more similar to themselves. In the case of Jews andnon-Jews, it predicts that Jews would be more likely to make friends andalliances with other Jews, and that there would be high levels of rapport andpsychological satisfaction within these relationships.
GST explains the extraordinary rapport and cohesiveness among Jews.
Since the vast majority of Jews are closely related genetically, GST predicts thatthey will be very attracted to other Jews and may even be able to recognize themin the absence of distinctive clothing and hair styles. There is anecdotal
evidence for this statement. Theologian Eugene Borowitz writes that Jews seek
each other out in social situations and feel “far more at home” after they havediscovered who is Jewish.54 “Most Jews claim to be equipped with aninterpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that enables them to detect thepresence of another Jew, despite heavy camouflage.” Another Jewish writercomments on the incredible sense of oneness he has with other Jews and his
ability to recognize other Jews in public places, a talent some Jews call “J-dar.”55
While dining with his non-Jewish fiancée, he is immediately recognized as
Jewish by some other Jews, and there is an immediate “bond of brotherhood”
between them that excludes his non-Jewish companion.
Robert Reich, Clinton administration Secretary of Labor, wrote that in his
first face-to-face meeting with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan
Greenspan, “We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one
phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his driveand his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle
Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless
weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I’m certainthat within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—weshared the same ancestor.”56 Reich is almost certainly correct: He andGreenspan do indeed have a recent common ancestor, and this genetic affinity
causes them to have an almost supernatural attraction to each other. Or
consider Sigmund Freud, who wrote that he found “the attraction of Judaism
and of Jews so irresistible, many dark emotional powers, all the mightier the lessthey let themselves be grasped in words, as well as the clear consciousness of
inner identity, the secrecy of the same mental construction.”57
Any discussion of Judaism has to start and probably end with this incrediblystrong bond that Jews have among each other—a bond that is created by their close
genetic relationship and by the intensification of the psychological mechanisms
underlying group cohesion. This powerful rapport among Jews translates into aheightened ability to cooperate in highly focused groups.
To conclude this section: In general, the contemporary organized Jewish
community is characterized by high levels of Jewish identification andethnocentrism. Jewish activist organizations like the ADL, the American

Summer 2003 /MacDonald

21

Jewish Committee, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and theneoconservative think tanks are not creations of the fundamentalist andOrthodox, but represent the broad Jewish community, including non-religious
Jews and Reform Jews. In general, the more actively people are involved in the
Jewish community, the more committed they are to preventing intermarriage
and retaining Jewish ethnic cohesion. And despite a considerable level ofintermarriage among less committed Jews, the leadership of the Jewish
community in the U.S. is at present not made up of the offspring of intermarriedpeople to any significant extent.
Jewish ethnocentrism is ultimately simple traditional human ethnocentrism, although it is certainly among the more extreme varieties. But what is so
fascinating is the cloak of intellectual support for Jewish ethnocentrism, thecomplexity and intellectual sophistication of the rationalizations for it—someof which are reviewed in Separation and Its Discontents58 and the rather
awesome hypocrisy (or cold-blooded deception) of it, given Jewish opposition
to ethnocentrism among Europeans.

II. JEWS ARE INTELLIGENT (AND WEALTHY)
The vast majority of U.S. Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. This is a very intelligent
group, with an average IQ of approximately 115 and verbal IQ considerably
higher.59 Since verbal IQ is the best predictor of occupational success andupward mobility in contemporary societies,60 it is not surprising that Jews arean elite group in the United States. Frank Salter has showed that on issues ofconcern to the Jewish community (Israel, immigration, ethnic policy ingeneral), Jewish groups have four times the influence of European Americans
despite representing approximately 2.5% of the population.61 Recent data
indicate that Jewish per capita income in the U.S. is almost double that of nonJews, a bigger difference than the black-white income gap.62 Although Jews
make up less than 3% of the population, they constitute more than a quarter ofthe people on the Forbes list of the richest four hundred Americans. Jews
constitute 45% of the top forty of the Forbes 400 richest Americans. Fully onethird of all American multimillionaires are Jewish. The percentage of Jewish
households with income greater than $50,000 is double that of non-Jews; on theother hand, the percentage of Jewish households with income less than $20,000
is half that of non-Jews. Twenty percent of professors at leading universities are
Jewish, and 40% of partners in leading New York and Washington, D.C., lawfirms are Jewish.63
In 1996, there were approximately 300 national Jewish organizations in the
United States, with a combined budget estimated in the range of $6 billion—asum greater than the gross national product of half the members of the United
Nations.64 For example, in 2001 the ADL claimed an annual budget of over
$50,000,000.65 There is also a critical mass of very wealthy Jews who are
actively involved in funding Jewish causes. Irving Moskowitz funds the settler

22Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

movement in Israel and pro-Israeli, neoconservative think tanks in Washington
DC, while Charles Bronfman, Ronald Lauder, and the notorious Marc Rich
fund Birthright Israel, a program that aims to increase ethnic consciousness
among Jews by bringing 20,000 young Jews to Israel every year. George Soros
finances liberal immigration policy throughout the Western world and also
funds Noel Ignatiev and his “Race Traitor” website dedicated to the abolitionof the white race. So far as I know, there are no major sources of funding aimed
at increasing ethnic consciousness among Europeans or at promoting
European ethnic interests.66 Certainly the major sources of conservative
funding in the U.S., such as the Bradley and Olin Foundations, are not aimed
at this sort of thing. Indeed, the Bradley Foundation has been a major sourceof funding for the largely Jewish neoconservative movement and for pro-Israel
think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy.67
Paul Findley68 provides numerous examples of Jews using their financial
clout to support political candidates with positions that are to the liking of
AIPAC and other pro-Israel activist groups in the U.S. This very large financial
support for pro-Israel candidates continues into the present—the most recent
examples being the campaigns to unseat Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard
from Congress in 2002. Because of their predominantly Jewish funding base,69
Democratic candidates are particularly vulnerable, but all candidates
experience this pressure because Jewish support will be funneled to theiropponents if there is any hint of disagreement with the pro-Israel lobby.
Intelligence is also important in providing access to the entire range ofinfluential positions, from the academic world, to the media, to business,
politics, and the legal profession. In CofC I describe several influential Jewish
intellectual movements developed by networks of Jews who were motivated toadvance Jewish causes and interests. These movements were the backbone of
the intellectual left in the twentieth century, and their influence continues into
the present. Collectively, they call into question the fundamental moral,
political, and economic foundations of Western society. These movements havebeen advocated with great intellectual passion and moral fervor and with avery high level of theoretical sophistication. As with the neoconservative
movement, discussed in the third article in this series, all of these movements
had ready access to prestigious mainstream media sources, at least partly
because of the high representation of Jews as owners and producers of
mainstream media.70 All of these movements were strongly represented atprestigious universities, and their work was published by prestigious
mainstream academic and commercial publishers.
Intelligence is also evident in Jewish activism. Jewish activism is like a fullcourt press in basketball: intense pressure from every possible angle. But in
addition to the intensity, Jewish efforts are very well organized, well funded,
and backed up by sophisticated, scholarly intellectual defenses. A good
example is the long and ultimately successful attempt to alter U.S. immigration

Summer 2003 /MacDonald23

policy.71 The main Jewish activist organization influencing immigration policy,
the American Jewish Committee, was characterized by “strong leadership,
internal cohesion, well-funded programs, sophisticated lobbying techniques,
well-chosen non-Jewish allies, and good timing.”72 The most visible Jewish
activists, such as Louis Marshall, were intellectually brilliant and enormouslyenergetic and resourceful in their crusades on behalf of immigration and otherJewish causes. When restrictionist arguments appeared in the media, theAmerican Jewish Committee made sophisticated replies based on at least theappearance of scholarly data, and typically couched in universalist terms as
benefiting the whole society. Articles favorable to immigration were publishedin national magazines, and letters to the editor were published in newspapers.
Talented lawyers initiated legal proceedings aimed at preventing thedeportation of aliens.
The pro-immigration lobby was also very well organized. Immigration
opponents, such as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and organizations like the
Immigration Restriction League were kept under close scrutiny and pressured
by lobbyists. Lobbyists in Washington also kept a daily scorecard of voting
tendencies as immigration bills wended their way through Congress, and they
engaged in intense and successful efforts to convince Presidents Taft andWilson to veto restrictive immigration legislation. Catholic prelates wererecruited to protest the effects of restrictionist legislation on immigration from
Italy and Hungary. There were well-organized efforts to minimize the negative
perceptions of immigration by distributing Jewish immigrants around thecountry and by getting Jewish aliens off public support. Highly visible and noisy
mass protest meetings were organized.73
Intelligence and organization are also apparent in contemporary Jewish
lobbying on behalf of Israel. Les Janka, a U.S. Defense Department official,noted that, “On all kinds of foreign policy issues the American people just don’t
make their voices heard. Jewish groups are the exceptions. They are prepared,
superbly briefed. They have their act together. It is hard for bureaucrats not to
respond.”74
Morton A. Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America(ZOA), is typical of the highly intelligent, competent, and dedicated Jewish
activist. The ZOA website states that Klein had a distinguished careers as abiostatistician in academe and in government service in the Nixon, Ford, andCarter administrations. He has received accolades as one of the leading Jewish
activists in the U.S., especially by media that are closely associated with Likud
policies in Israel. For example, the Wall Street Journal called the ZOA “heroic
and the most credible advocate for Israel on the American Jewish scene today”
and added that we should “snap a salute to those who were right about Osloand Arafat all along, . . . including Morton Klein who was wise, brave andunflinchingly honest. . . . [W]hen the history of the American Jewish struggle
in these years is written, Mr. Klein will emerge as an outsized figure.” The24

Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

website boasts of Klein’s success “against anti-Israel bias” in textbooks, travel
guides, universities, churches, and the media, as well as his work on Capitol
Hill.” Klein has led successful efforts to block the appointment of Joe Zogby, an
Arab American, to the State Department and the appointment of Strobe
Talbott, Clinton nominee for Deputy Secretary of State. Klein’s pro-Israel
articles have appeared in a wide range of mainstream and Jewish media: NewYork Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New Republic, New Yorker,
Commentary, Near East Report, Reform Judaism, Moment, Forward, Jerusalem
Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, Ha’aretz (Jerusalem),
Maariv (Jerusalem), and the Israeli-Russian paper Vesti.
Klein’s activism highlights the importance of access to the major media
enjoyed by Jewish activists and organizations—a phenomenon that is traceable
ultimately to Jewish intelligence. Jews have a very large presence in the media
as owners, writers, producers, and editors—far larger than any otheridentifiable group.75 In the contemporary world, this presence is especially
important with respect to perceptions of Israel. Media coverage of Israel in the
U.S. is dominated by a pro-Israel bias, whereas in most of the world the
predominant view is that the Palestinians are a dispossessed people undersiege.76 A critical source of support for Israel is the army of professional pundits“who can be counted upon to support Israel reflexively and without
qualification.”77 Perhaps the most egregious example of pro-Israel bias
resulting from Jewish media control is the Asper family, owners of CanWest,a company that controls over 33% of the English-language newspapers in
Canada. CanWest inaugurated an editorial policy in which all editorials had
to be approved by the main office. As the Canadian Journalists for Free
Expression notes, “the Asper family staunchly supports Israel in its conflicts
with Palestinians, and coverage of the Middle East appears to be a particularly
sensitive area.”78 CanWest has exercised control over the content of articles
related to Israel by editing and spiking articles with pro-Palestinian or antiIsraeli views. Journalists who have failed to adopt CanWest positions have beenreprimanded or dismissed.

III. JEWS ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY INTENSE
I have compared Jewish activism to a full court press—relentlessly intenseand covering every possible angle. There is considerable evidence that Jews arehigher than average on emotional intensity.79 Emotionally intense people areprone to intense emotional experience of both positive and negative
emotions.80 Emotionality may be thought of as a behavioral intensifier—anenergizer. Individuals high on affect intensity have more complex social
networks and more complex lives, including multiple and even conflicting
goals. Their goals are intensely sought after.

Summer 2003 /MacDonald25

In the case of Jews, this affects the tone and intensity of their efforts at
activism. Among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed toJewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that
produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues. Jewish activism has arelentless, never-say-die quality. This intensity goes hand in hand with the“slippery slope” style of arguing described above: Jewish activism is an intense
response because even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or
behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed tocontinue.
Besides its ability to direct Jewish money to its preferred candidates, a largepart of AIPAC’s effectiveness lies in its ability to rapidly mobilize its 60,000
members. “In virtually every congressional district . . . AIPAC has a group ofprominent citizens it can mobilize if an individual senator or representativeneeds stroking.”81 When Senator Charles Percy suggested that Israel negotiatewith the PLO and be willing to trade land for peace, he was inundated with
2,200 telegrams and 4,000 letters, 95% against, and mainly from the Jewish
community in Chicago.82 The other side is seldom able to muster a response thatcompetes with the intensity of the Jewish response. When President
Eisenhower—the last president to stand up to the pro-Israel lobby—pressured
Israel into withdrawing from the Sinai in 1957, almost all the mail opposed his
decision. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles complained, “It is impossible tohold the line because we get no support from the Protestant elements in the
country. All we get is a battering from the Jews.”83 This pales in comparison to
the avalanche of 150,000 letters to President Johnson urging support for Israel
when Egypt closed the Strait of Tiran in May 1967. This was just prior to the“Six-Day War,” during which the U.S. provided a great deal of military
assistance and actively cooperated in the cover-up of the assault on the USS
Liberty. Jews had learned from their defeat at the hands of Eisenhower and had
redoubled their lobbying efforts, creating by all accounts the most effective
lobby in Washington.
Pressure on officials in the State and Defense departments is relentless andintense. In the words of one official, “One has to keep in mind the constantcharacter of this pressure. The public affairs staff of the Near East Bureau in theState Department figures it will spend about 75 percent of its time dealing with
Jewish groups. Hundreds of such groups get appointments in the executive
branch each year.”84
Psychological intensity is also typical of Israelis. For example, the Israelis are
remarkably persistent in their attempts to obtain U.S. military hardware. The
following comment illustrates not only the relentless, intense pressure, but also
the aggressiveness of Jewish pursuit of their interests: “They would never takeno for an answer. They never gave up. These emissaries of a foreign government
always had a shopping list of wanted military items, some of them hightechnology that no other nation possessed, some of it secret devices that gave26

Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

the United States an edge over any adversary.”85 Even though small in number,the effects are enormous. “They never seem to sleep, guarding Israel’s interests
around the clock.”86 Henry Kissinger made the following comment on Israeli
negotiating tactics. “In the combination of single-minded persistence andconvoluted tactics the Israelis preserve in the interlocutor only those last
vestiges of sanity and coherence needed to sign the final document.”87

IV. JEWS ARE AGGRESSIVE
Being aggressive and “pushy” is part of the stereotype of Jews in Western
societies. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of scientific studies on this aspect ofJewish personality. Hans Eysenck, renowned for his research on personality,
claims that Jews are indeed rated more aggressive by people who know themwell. 88
Jews have always behaved aggressively toward those they have lived
among, and they have been perceived as aggressive by their critics. What
strikes the reader of Henry Ford’s The International Jew (TIJ), written in theearly 1920s, is its portrayal of Jewish intensity and aggressiveness inasserting their interests.89 As TIJ notes, from Biblical times Jews haveendeavored to enslave and dominate other peoples, even in disobedience of
divine command, quoting the Old Testament, “And it came to pass, when
Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did notutterly drive them out.” In the Old Testament the relationship between
Israel and foreigners is one of domination: For example, “They shall go after
thee, in chains they shall come over; And they shall fall down unto thee.
They shall make supplication unto thee” (Isa. 45:14); “They shall bow
down to thee with their face to the earth, And lick the dust of thy feet”(49:23). Similar sentiments appear in Trito-Isaiah (60:14, 61:5–6), Ezekiel(e.g., 39:10), and Ecclesiasticus (36:9). The apotheosis of Jewish attitudes ofconquest can be seen in the Book of Jubilees, where world domination andgreat reproductive success are promised to the seed of Abraham:
I am the God who created heaven and earth. I shall increase you, and multiply
you exceedingly; and kings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the footof the sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which isunder heaven, and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire;and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit itfor ever (Jub. 32:18-19).

Elsewhere I have noted that a major theme of anti-Jewish attitudes
throughout the ages has been Jewish economic domination.90 The following
petition from the citizens of the German town of Hirschau opposed allowing
Jews to live there because Jews were seen as aggressive competitors who
ultimately dominate the people they live among:Summer 2003 /MacDonald27

If only a few Jewish families settle here, all small shops, tanneries, hardware
stores, and so on, which, as things stand, provide their proprietors with nothing
but the scantiest of livelihoods, will in no time at all be superseded andcompletely crushed by these [Jews] such that at least twelve local families will be
reduced to beggary, and our poor relief fund, already in utter extremity, will befully exhausted within one year. The Jews come into possession in the shortest
possible time of all cash money by getting involved in every business; theyrapidly become the only possessors of money, and their Christian neighbors
become their debtors.91

Late nineteenth-century Zionists such as Theodor Herzl were quite awarethat a prime source of modern anti-Jewish attitudes was that emancipation had
brought Jews into direct economic competition with the non-Jewish middle
classes, a competition that Jews typically won. Herzl “insisted that one could
not expect a majority to ‘let themselves be subjugated’ by formerly scorned
outsiders whom they had just released from the ghetto.”92 The theme of
economic domination has often been combined with the view that Jews are
personally aggressive. In the Middle Ages Jews were seen as “pitilesscreditors.”93 The philosopher Immanuel Kant stated that Jews were “a nationof usurers . . . outwitting the people amongst whom they find shelter. . . . They
make the slogan ‘let the buyer beware’ their highest principle in dealing withus.” 94
In early twentieth-century America, the sociologist Edward A. Ross
commented on a greater tendency among Jewish immigrants to maximize theiradvantage in all transactions, ranging from Jewish students badgering teachers
for higher grades to Jewish poor attempting to get more than the usual
charitable allotment. “No other immigrants are so noisy, pushing anddisdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews.”95
The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence forlaw as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way. . . . The
insurance companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other. Credit
men say the Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get ridof his debts. For lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End
of Boston “the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a
proverb.”96

These characteristics have at times been noted by Jews themselves. In a
survey commissioned by the American Jewish Committee’s study of the Jewsof Baltimore in 1962, “two-thirds of the respondents admitted to believing that
other Jews are pushy, hostile, vulgar, materialistic, and the cause of antiSemitism. And those were only the ones who were willing to admit it.”97
Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility
toward American Christian culture and in their energetic, aggressive efforts tochange that culture.98 From the perspective of Ford’s TIJ, the United States had
imported around 3,500,000 mainly Yiddish-speaking, intensely Jewish
immigrants over the previous forty years. In that very short period, Jews had

28Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

had enormous effect on American society, particularly in their attempts toremove expressions of Christianity from public life beginning with an attemptin 1899–1900 to remove the word “Christian” from the Virginia Bill of Rights:“The Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the
predominant Christian character of the U.S. is the only active form of religious
intolerance in the country today.”99
A prototypical example of Jewish aggressiveness toward American culture
has been Jewish advocacy of liberal immigration policies which have had atransformative effect on the U.S.:
In undertaking to sway immigration policy in a liberal direction, Jewish
spokespersons and organizations demonstrated a degree of energy unsurpassedby any other interested pressure group. Immigration had constituted a prime
object of concern for practically every major Jewish defense and community
relations organization. Over the years, their spokespersons had assiduously
attended congressional hearings, and the Jewish effort was of the utmost
importance in establishing and financing such non-sectarian groups as the
National Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced
Persons.100

Jewish aggressiveness and their role in the media, in the creation of culture
and information in the social sciences and humanities, and in the politicalprocess in the United States contrasts with the role of Overseas Chinese.101 The
Chinese have not formed a hostile cultural elite in Southeast Asian countries
motivated by historical grievances against the people and culture of their hosts.
For example, despite their economic dominance, the Chinese have not been
concerned with restrictions on their citizenship rights, which have beencommon in Southeast Asia.102 Whereas the Chinese have reacted rather
passively to such restrictions, Jews have reacted to any manifestation of antiJewish attitudes or behavior with an all-out effort at eradication. Indeed, we
have seen that the mainstream Jewish attitude is that even trivial
manifestations of anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior must not be ignored
because they can and will lead to mass murder. Not only have the Chinese notattempted to remove public displays of symbols of Indonesian nationalism andreligion, they have not seriously attempted to change laws in place since the1960s mandating that there be no public displays of Chinese culture.103
Besides the normal sorts of lobbying typical of the political process in the
U.S., perhaps the clearest examples of Jewish aggressiveness are the many
examples of intimidation of their opponents—loss of job, death threats,
constant harassment, economic losses such as loss of advertising revenue formedia businesses, and charges of anti-Semitism—the last being perhaps thegreatest sin against the post-World War II political order that can be imagined.
When Adlai Stevenson III was running for governor of Illinois, his record in
opposition to Israeli settlement policy and his statement that the PLO was a
legitimate voice of the Palestinian people resulted in a whisper campaign that
he was an anti-Semite. Stevenson commented:

Summer 2003 /MacDonald

29

There is an intimidating, activist minority of American Jews that supports thedecisions of the Israeli government, right or wrong. They do so very vocally and very
aggressively in ways that intimidate others so that it’s their voice—even though it isa minority—that is heard in American politics. But it still is much louder in the
United States than in Israel. In other words, you have a much stronger, more vocal
dissent in Israel than within the Jewish community in the United States. The prime
minister of Israel has far more influence over American foreign policy in the Middle
East than over the policies of his own government generally.104

A common tactic has been to charge that critics of Israel are anti-Semites.
Indeed, George Ball, a perceptive critic of Israel and its U.S. constituency,
maintains that the charge of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust is the
Israeli lobby’s most effective weapon—outstripping its financial clout.105 The
utility of these psychological weapons in turn derives from the very large
Jewish influence on the U.S. media. Historian Peter Novick notes regarding theimportance of the Holocaust in contemporary American life:
We [i.e., Jews] are not just “the people of the book,” but the people of the Hollywood film
and the television miniseries, of the magazine article and the newspaper column, of the
comic book and the academic symposium. When a high level of concern with the
Holocaust became widespread in American Jewry, it was, given the important role thatJews play in American media and opinion-making elites, not only natural, but virtuallyinevitable that it would spread throughout the culture at large.106

And, of course, the appeal to the Holocaust is especially compelling forAmerican Jews. When the Mossad wants to recruit U.S. Jews for help in its
espionage work, in the words of a CIA agent “the appeal is a simple one: ‘Whenthe call went out and no one heeded it, the Holocaust resulted.’ “107Charges of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust are not the only
instruments of Jewish aggressiveness on Israeli issues. Jewish groups intimidate
their enemies by a variety of means. People who oppose policies on Israel
advocated by Jewish activist organizations have been fired from their jobs,
harassed with letters, subjected to intrusive surveillance, and threatened withdeath. Although there is a great deal of self-censorship in the media on Israel
as a result of the major role of Jews in the ownership and production of themedia, gaps in this armor are aggressively closed. There are “threats to editors
and advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns ofcharacter assassination, and personal vendettas.”108 Other examples
recounted by Findley include pressure on the Federal Communications
Commission to stop broadcast licenses, demands for submission to an oversightcommittee prior to publication, and the stationing of a Jewish activist in thenewsroom of the Washington Post in order to monitor the process.
The result of all this intense, well-organized aggression is thatThose who criticize Israeli policy in any sustained way invite painful andrelentless retaliation, and even loss of their livelihood by pressure from one ormore parts of Israel’s lobby. Presidents fear it. Congress does its bidding.
Prestigious universities shun academic programs and buckle under its pressure.

30Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

Instead of having their arguments and opinions judged on merit, critics of Israel
suddenly find their motivations, their integrity, and basic moral values called
into question. No matter how moderate their criticism, they may be characterized
as pawns of the oil lobby, apologists for Arabs, or even anti-Semitic.109

The following quote from Henry Kissinger sums up the aggressive Israeli
attitudes toward U.S. aid:
Yitzak [Rabin] had many extraordinary qualities, but the gift of human relations
was not one of them. If he had been handed the entire “United States Strategic Air
Command” as a free gift he would have (a) affected the attitude that at last Israel
was getting its due, and (b) found some technical shortcoming in the airplanes
that made his accepting them a reluctant concession to us.110

But of course by far the most important examples of Israeli aggressivenesshave been toward their neighbors in the Middle East. This aggression has been
there from the beginning, as Israel has consistently put pressure on border areas
with incursions, including the Kibya massacre of 1953 led by Ariel Sharon.111
The personal aggressiveness of Israeli society has long been a topic ofcommentators. Israel is known for its arrogance, insolence (chutzpah),coldness, roughness, rudeness, and lack of civility. For example, B. Z. Sobel, an
Israeli sociologist at the University of Haifa, found that among the motivations
for emigrating from Israel was that “there is indeed an edginess [in Israeli
society]; tempers flare, and verbal violence is rampant”112

CONCLUSION
The current situation in the United States is the result of an awesome
deployment of Jewish power and influence. One must contemplate the fact that
American Jews have managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel
over the last thirty-five years despite Israel’s seizing land and engaging in a
brutal occupation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories—anoccupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete subjugation,
degradation, and apartheid. During this same period Jewish organizations in
America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting
a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, forencouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting
a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to thecomplaints and interests of ethnic minorities: the culture of the Holocaust.113
American Judaism is well organized and lavishly funded. It has achieveda great deal of power, and it has been successful in achieving its interests.114 Oneof the great myths often promulgated by Jewish apologists is that Jews have noconsensus and therefore cannot wield any real power. Yet there is in fact a great
deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel andthe welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, churchstate separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties.115 Massive changes in public
policy on these issues, beginning with the counter-cultural revolution of theSummer 2003 /MacDonald

31

1960s, coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the
United States. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find any significant area where
public policy conflicts with the attitudes of mainstream Jewish organizations.
Later papers in this series will discuss concrete examples of Jewish activism: The
history of Zionism as a radical Jewish movement and the presently influential Jewish
neoconservative movement.

Kevin MacDonald is Professor of Psychology, California State
University—Long Beach, and the author of: A People That Shall
Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and Its Discontents (1998), and
The Culture of Critique (1998) published by Praeger. A revised
edition of The Culture of Critique (2002), with an expanded
introduction, is available in a quality soft cover edition fromwww.1stBooks.com or www.amazon.com.

REFERENCES
References to the Book of Jubilees are from Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament II, ed. R. H. Charles, 1–82. Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1913] 1966.
References to the Book of Maccabees are to The New English Bible: The Apocrypha. London:
Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Adelman, T. Z.1999. Jewish ethics: Are they ethical? Are they Jewish? The Jewish Agency
for Israel, Department for Jewish Zionist Education, August 22. http://www.jajzed.org.il/juice/history1/week8.html
Alterman, E. 2002. Intractable foes, warring narratives: While much of the world sees
Mideast conflict through Palestinian eyes, in America, Israel’s view prevails; http://
www.msnbc.com/news/730905.asp; March 28.
Ball, G., and Ball, D. 1992. The Passionate Attachment: American’s Involvement with Israel,1947 to the Present. New York: W. W. Norton.
Borowitz, E. B. 1973. The Mask Jews Wear: Self-Deceptions of American Jewry. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Boyle, S. S. 2001. The Betrayal of Palestine: The Story of George Antonius. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Burton, M. L., Moore, C. C., Whiting, J. W. M., and Romney, A. K. 1996. Regions based onsocial structure. Current Anthropology 37: 87–123.
Coughlin, R. J. 1960. Double Identity: The Chinese in Modern Thailand. Hong Kong and London:
Hong Kong University Press and Oxford University Press.
Chernin, K. 2002. Seven pillars of denial. Tikkun, Sept./Oct.
Coon, C. 1958. Caravan: The Story of the Middle East, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Curtiss, R. 1998. The cost of Israel to the American people. Talk presented at the Al-Hewar
Center in Vienna, Virginia, May 20, 1998.
Dumont, P. 1982. Jewish communities in Turkey during the last decades of the nineteenth
century in light of the archives of the Alliance Israélite Universelle. In Christians and Jews in the
Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, ed. B. Braude and B. Lewis. New York:
Holmes & Meier Publishers.

32Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

Eickleman, D. F. 1981. The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Epstein, L. M. 1942. Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Eysenck, H. J. 1962. The Uses and Abuses of Psychology. Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Findley, P. 1989. They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, 2nd ed.
Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books.
Gay, P. 1988. Freud: A Life for Our Time. New York: W. W. Norton.
Getlin, J. 2002. Violence in Mideast galvanizes U.S. Jews. Los Angeles Times, April 28.
Gibbon, E. 1909. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 7 vols., ed. J. B. Bury. London: Methuen.
Goldberg, J.J. 1996. Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Goldstein, J. 1990. The Politics of Ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish Committee Fight against
Immigration Restriction, 1906–1917. New York: Garland Publishing.
Gonen, J. Y. 1975. A Psychohistory of Zionism. New York: Mason/Charter.
Hamilton, W. D. 2001. At the world’s crossroads: Instability and cycling of two competing
hosts with two parasites. In Narrow Roads of Gene Land: The Collected Papers of W. D. Hamilton.
Vol. 2, The Evolution of Sex, pp. 253–285. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hammer, M. F., Redd, A. J., Wood, E. T., Bonner, M. R., Jarjanazi, H., Karafet, T., SantachiaraBenerecetti, S., Oppenheim, A., Jobling, M. A., Jenkins, T., Ostrer, H., and Bonné-Tamir, B.
2000. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Ychromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 9.
Harris, J. F. 1994. The People Speak! Anti-Semitism and Emancipation in Nineteenth-Century
Bavaria. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Horowitz, D. L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Horowitz, D. 1997. Radical Son: A Journey through Our Time. New York: Free Press.
Horowitz, D. 2002. American conservatism: An argument with the racial right.
FrontPageMagazine.com, August 27.
Kornberg, R. 1993. Theodore Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Larsen, R. J., and Diener, E., 1987. Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A
review. Journal of Research in Personality 21:1–39.
Lipset, S. M., and Raab, E. 1995. Jews and the New American Scene. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Luchaire, A. 1912. Social France at the Time of Philip Augustus. New York: Frederick Ungar.
Lustick, I. A.1987. Israel’s dangerous fundamentalists. Foreign Policy 68 (Fall), 123–124.
Lynn, R. 1992. Intelligence: Ethnicity and culture. In Cultural Diversity and the Schools, ed. J.
Lynch, C. Modgil, and S. Modgil. London and Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.
MacDonald, K. B. 1994/2002. A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary
Strategy with Diaspora Peoples. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. (Originally published in 1994 by
Praeger, Westport, CT).
MacDonald, K. B. 1998a. Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of AntiSemitism. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Summer 2003 /MacDonald

33

MacDonald, K. B. 1998b/2002. The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish
Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. Bloomington, IN:
1stBooks Library. (Originally published in 1998 by Praeger, Westport, CT).
MacDonald, K. B. 2002. Review of Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate by Neil
Baldwin (New York: Public Affairs, 2001, 416 pp.) and The International Jew: The World’s
Foremost Problem, by Henry Ford ( Dearborn, MI: Dearborn Independent, 1920–1921, 416 pp.).
Part I: The education of a midwestern industrialist. The Occidental Quarterly 2, no. 3, 2002. Part
II: The Dearborn Independent series in perspective. The Occidental Quarterly 2, no. 4.
Massing, M. 2002. Deal breakers, American Prospect, March 11.
Neuringer, S. M. 1971. American Jewry and United States Immigration Policy, 1881–1953. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1969. Ann Arbor, MI: University
Microfilms. (Reprinted by Arno Press, 1980.)
Novick, P. 1999. The Holocaust in American Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Podhoretz, N. 1986. The hate that dare not speak its name. Commentary 82(November):21–32.
Podhoretz, N. 2000. My Love Affair with America: A Cautionary Tale of a Cheerful Conservative.
New York: Free Press.
Podhoretz, N. 2002. In praise of the Bush doctrine. Commentary, September.
Reich, R. 1997. Locked in the Cabinet. New York: Scribner.
Rokach, L. 1986. Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, 3rd ed. Belmont, MA: Association of Arab-American
University Graduations, Inc. (Originally published 1980.)
Rose, P. L. 1992. Wagner: Race and Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ross, E. A. 1914. The Old World and the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to
the American People. New York: Century.
Rushton, J. P. 1989. Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral andBrain Sciences 12: 503–559.
Rushton, J. P. 1999. Genetic similarity theory and the nature of ethnocentrism. In K.
Thienpont and R. Cliquet (eds.) In-group/Out-group Behavior in Modern Societies: An
Evolutionary Perspective, pp. 75–107. The Netherlands: Vlaamse Gemeeschap/CBGS.
Sacks, J. 1993. One People? Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity. London: The Littman
Library of Jewish Civilization.
Salter, F. K. 2002. Fuzzy but real: America’s ethnic hierarchy. Paper presented at the meetingsof the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, Montreal, August 9.
Schatz, J. 1991. The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Shahak, I. 1993. Relations between Israel and organized American Jews. Middle East
Policy Council Journal 2, no. 3, http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_shahak/
shahakmain.asp
Shahak, I., and Mezvinsky, N. 1999. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. London: Pluto Press.
Silbiger, S. 2000. The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People.
Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press.
Sobel, B. Z 1986. Exodus from Israel. In E. Levine, ed., Voices from Israel: Understanding theIsraeli Mind. New York, London, Toronto: Herzl Press, Cornwall Books.
Soloveichik, M. Y. 2003. The virtue of hate. First Things 129: 41–46.
Sombart, W. 1913/1982. Jews and Modern Capitalism, trans. M. Epstein. Reprint, New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

34

Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

Tacitus, C. 1942. The History. In M. Hadas, ed., The Complete Works of Tacitus., trans. A. J.
Church and W. J. Broadribb. New York: Modern Library.
Thernstrom, S., and Thernstrom, A. 1997. America in Black and White: One Nation,
Indivisible. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Vest, J. 2002. The men from JINSA and CSP. The Nation, September 2.
Walsh, W. T. 1930. Isabella of Spain: The Last Crusader. New York: Robert M. McBride.
Wiesel, E. 1985. Against Silence: The Voice and Vision of Elie Wiesel. Selected and edited by
Irving Abrahamson, vol. 1. New York: Holocaust Library.
Yaffe, J. 1968. The American Jews: Portrait of a Split Personality. New York: Random House.

ENDNOTES
1. MacDonald 1998a, Ch. 3.
2. MacDonald 1998a, Ch. 4.
3. MacDonald 1998b/2002.
4. Sacks 1993, ix–x.
5. MacDonald 1998b/2002, passim.
6. MacDonald 1994/2002, Ch. 8; 1998b/2002, Preface.
7. Burton et al. 1996.
8. See MacDonald 1994/2002, Chs. 3 and 8 for a discussion of Jewish tendencies toward
polygyny, endogamy, and consanguineous marriage.
9. E.g., Coon 1958, 153; Eickelman 1981, 157–174.
10. Coon 1958, 153.
11. Dumont 1982, 222.
12. MacDonald 1994/2002, Ch. 8; MacDonald 1998a, Ch. 1.
13. Hamilton 2001, p. 273. Hamilton likens Judaism to a speciation event in which there is arole for cultural practices such as food preparation: “the main (but moderate) differencesfrom biological situations being that Judaism had come to use a cultural element ofinheritance to replace what genes once had been doing more slowly” (p. 271). He also
notes that, “In the world of animals, ants perhaps provide Homo’s nearest equivalent for
typical broadness of niche. If an unspecialized ant species had a Bible, I’d expect to findin it extremely similar injunctions about food, ant genocide, and so forth, as I find in theactual Bible, and I would have no difficulty to suppose these as serving each ant colony
well in its struggle for existence” (p. 271).
14. Hamilton 2001, 271–272.
15. Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999.
16. Ibid., p. 58.
17. In Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999, 59–60.
18. Wiesel 1985, 153.
19. Adelman 1999.
20. Lustick 1987, 123–124.
21. Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999, 8.
22. K. Chernin, Tikkun, Sept./Oct. 2002.
23. Novick 1999, 178.
24. Podhoretz 2000, 148.

Summer 2003 /MacDonald35

25. www.frontpagemag.com; December 12, 2002.
26. In Findley 1989, 102.
27. L. Auster, The View from the Right, December 9, 2002: http://www.counterrevolution.net/
vfr/archives/001041.html
28. See MacDonald 1998/2002, Preface and Ch. 7.
29. Forward, November 29, 2002.
30. Simon Wiesenthal Center press release, November 10, 2002: http://www.wiesenthal.com/
social/press/pr_item.cfm?itemID=6722
31. Interview with Dutch-Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld, January 30, 2003: “Wepossess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all
directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. . . . Our armed
forces . . . are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have thecapability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel
goes under.” http://www.de.indymedia.org/2003/01/39170.shtml
32. Assyrians hope for U.S. protection, Los Angeles Times (Orange County Edition),
February 17, 2003, p. B8.
33. MacDonald 1998a, Ch. 2.
34. Tacitus 1942, p. 659.
35. Gibbon 1909, Ch. 16, 78.
36. In Walsh 1930, 196.
37. Sombart 1913, 240.
38. Soloveichik 2003. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0302/articles/soloveichik.html
39. Ibid.
40. See MacDonald 1998/2002, Preface.
41. MacDonald 1998a.
42. http://www.amren.com/horowitz_reply.htm
43. Horowitz 1997, 42
44. See MacDonald 1998b/2002, Chap. 3
45. MacDonald 1998a, Ch. 6; 1998/2002, Preface.
46. Horowitz 2002.
47. MacDonald 1998b/2002.
48. Ibid.
49. www.adl.org/presrele/dirab%5F41/3396%5F41.asp
50. Boyle 2001.
51. Hammer et al. 2000.
52. See Rushton 1989; 1999.
53. This refers to genes identical because they are inherited from a common ancestor.
Uncles and nieces share one-fourth their genes only on average. Because the relationshipis mediated though a sibling relationship, the actual percentage can vary. Siblings may be
more or less like one another depending on random processes, but on average they sharehalf their genes.
54. Borowitz 1973, 136.
55. Toronto Globe and Mail, May 11, 1993.
56. Reich 1997, 79.

36Vol. 3, No. 2

The Occidental Quarterly

57. In Gay 1988, 601.
58. MacDonald 1998a, Chs. 6–8.
59. MacDonald 1994/2002, Ch. 7.
60. Lynn 1992.
61. Salter 2002.
62. Thernstrom and Thernstrom, 1997.
63. Silbiger 2000.
64. Goldberg 1996, 38–39.
65. www.adl.org
66. Salter 2002.
67. Vest 2002.
68. Findley 1989.
69. Lipset and Raab, 1995.
70. MacDonald 1998b/2002.
71. MacDonald 1998b/2002, Ch. 7.
72. Goldstein 1990, 333.
73. Neuringer 1971.
74. Findley 1989 164.
75. MacDonald1998b/2002, Preface.
76. Alterman 2002.
77. Ibid.
78. “Not in the Newsroom: CanWest, Global, and Freedom of Expression in Canada.”
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression: http://www.cjfe.org/specials/canwest/
canw2.html; April 2002.
79. MacDonald 1994/2002, Ch. 7.
80. See Larsen and Diener 1987.
81. Massing 2002.
82. Findley 1989.
83. In Findley 1989, 119.
84. In Findley 1989, 164.
85. In Findley 1989, 164.
86. Findley 1989, 328.
87. In Ball and Ball 1993, 70.
88. Eysenck 1962, 262.
89. See MacDonald 2002, Review of The International Jew. The Occidental Quarterly, V. 2, Nos.
3 & 4, pp. 69, 53.
90. MacDonald 1998a, Ch. 2.
91. In Harris 1994, 254.
92. Kornberg 1993, 183; inner quote from Herzl’s diary.
93. Luchaire 1912, 195.
94. In Rose 1992, 7; italics in text.
95. Ross 1914, 150.
96. Ross 1914, 150.

Summer 2003 /MacDonald37

97. Yaffe 1968, 73. Yaffe embeds this comment in a discussion of self-hating Jews—implyingthat Jews are simply accepting stereotypes that are the fantasies of bigoted non-Jews.
98. See also MacDonald 1994/2002.
99. The International Jew, 3/21/1920.
100. Neuringer 1971, 392–393.
101. MacDonald 1998b/2002.
102. Coughlin 1960, 169.
103. See MacDonald 1994/2002, Preface to the First Paperback Edition.
104. In Findley 1989, 92.
105. Findley 1989, 127.
106. Novick 1999, 12.
107. Newsweek 9/3/1979.
108. Findley 1989, 296.
109. Findley 1989, 315.
110. In Ball and Ball 1992, 70.
111. See Ball and Ball 1992, 44 and passim.
112. Sobel 1986, 153.
113. See MacDonald 1998b/2002, Preface.
114. Goldberg 1996.
115. Ibid., p. 5.