I finally finished reading the three books by Kevin MacDonald that Ron Unz has included in books, controversial selection.
https://www.unz.com/book/controversial/all/
and found some time to write a few comments. It was a long and rather tiresome reading, especially the last book, but they are worth reading at least for a non-Jew. I could imagine Jews might find them slightly anti-Semitic. I did not, as I do not have any personal feeling towards the Jewish people, nor to the USA or to paleoconservative ideology.
The thesis of all three books is that Diaspora Jews have as an ethnic group pursued a group-strategy, which advances Jewish interests and is in conflict with the interests of the majority of the host population.
This thesis is very easy to demonstrate and MacDonald makes it well.
1. In historical times Jews usually acted as middlemen between the rulers and the people. They practiced usury, which was harmful to the people, and were protected by the rulers, often an alien ruling class. In addition to usury, they also held monopolies, such as the alcohol monopoly, acted as estate managers, tax farmers etc. These activities were usually highly profitable and they caused the image of Jews as exploiters of native people. MacDonald shows this with many examples.
2. In the modern times, as that is what we are interested in, Jews in the USA support multiculture, immigration from other cultures and the position that that there are no ethnic differences. But in Israel they support ethnic culture and limit immigration from other cultures. People are such that for their friends they want the same as for themselves, and if they want different things for themselves and from some other group, then it means that this other group they consider as enemies, not friends. Thus, American Jews consider American white non-Jews as their enemies.
I think MacDonald demonstrated this thesis quite well and it proves his claim of the Jews following a group strategy consciously or unconsciously. What I do not think is correct in MacDonald’s thesis is that he believes that Jewish behavior is determined by genes. He presents Jews as highly intelligent group, which would have developed as a result of genetic selection.
I see the Jewish high verbal IQ as typical of Mediterranean Europeans, whom Ashkenazi Jews closely resemble genetically because of their origins as admixture with Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern (these two groups are not far genetically) people. There is a DNA gradient between Southern and Northern Europe and European Jews fit quite well to the Mediterranean type. This gradient is much older than the 1000 years that Ashkenazi Jews have existed as a population. Because of endogamous marriage practices they are a separate group, but not genetically essentially different from other people in those areas.
IQ tests do not clearly show the high verbal IQ of Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern people, but it is known that the Black in the USA have stronger verbal than visual IQ. I can only refer to anecdotic evidence from research projects where I and some other people I know have participated. The southerners, Italians and Greeks, are very good in verbal performance and they also write beautifully, while they are not so good in logical thinking. I am sure they have a verbally skewed IQ, but national IQ tests must be balanced in such a way that the skew is compensated. Then one finds the skew when comparing different ethnic groups in one country. Additionally American Jews are well educated and use a language close to the US elite language. Thus, they get high ratings of verbal IQ. I do accept that their average IQ is also somewhat higher than for US whites as a group, but this I see as a result of selection in the immigration of the Jews to the USA.
So no, I do not believe in the higher genetic IQ thesis. There are differences in IQ between the main races, but these differences are a result of 50,000 years of separation. If a few thousand years of separation would result to IQ differences, I would expect that the Finns and Sami have different IQs, but they are the same. Yet, Finns were agricultural already before they came to Finland and the Sami herder reindeers and before that were hunter-gatherers. No, the environment does not cause immediate genetic changes in IQ genes. Jews just claim so to hide their group strategy.
As a judgment of the books, they are worth reading. Not much will be new for someone, who has studied the topic, but MacDonald adds many details and some will be new. There are Jewish involvements in many failed fashions, like Communism and psychoanalysis. The books describe how the prominent Jewish role on many fields (including science) are a result of ethnic networking and education (MacDonald too much emphases high genetic IQ, which has only weak support).
What irritated me most is that he tries to prove his thesis of evolutionary group strategy, where evolutionary has a strong genetic component. I think it is more a cultural phenomenon, not genetic. Endogamous groups tend to divide the world between us and them and be hostile to the Outgroup. This does not require natural selection on the genetic level. A fast growing population (the Ashkenazi Jews) could not face much natural selection as all females were to marry, the population was mostly monogamous, and there even was social help: thus, even the genetically poor managed to raise children.
The last book looks at Freud’s psychoanalysis. Everybody knows that it is nonsense, but I did not realize that it is so much a Jewish field. I knew about Freud’s ring society (a semi-secret society to control practitioners of psychoanalysis and to infiltrate). I did know that Boas was wrong in his race denial, but again I did not realize the connections to the Jewish goals. Stephen Jay Gold is also debunked. I knew that, but I still like his punctuated evolution as an observation that Darwinism is not the final theory. Everybody knows that Jews were Communists and Leftists, but the book convinced me of the close connection between American Jews and Black civil rights movement. I had heard the claim many times, but seems to be it was so, and Jews historically were slave traders, exploiters of the common people, so this connection is indeed unnatural. MacDonald explains well how the Jewish goal was to destroy the non-Jewish white society. Of course, one cannot forget the Frankfurt School. It was Leftists and mostly wrong in its claims, and it also was Jewish.
That sounds pretty bad, but at least there is Einstein. Unfortunately, I did look at Einstein and the claims of plagiarism are not unfounded. Furthermore, he may have been very incorrect in dispensing with the ether time. That may be the biggest mistake in modern physics. So, maybe he was not so great benefactor of the humanity after all. He wrote some racist comments of Asian people to his travel books.
So, Marx out, Freud out, Einstein was maybe not so great either, but they get to the fame by the help of their group. That is a crime in a democracy, or it should be. A democracy is built on the assumption that everybody acts as an individual. Only if everybody is evaluated in the same measure, such a system it fair. If a group supports its own members, it discriminates against non-members. In a democracy a group helping its own can easily gain power and positions. It is easy to infiltrate organizations. All you have to do it to get one in and he will help to get more people in. Such a group must deny that it is infiltrating, but of course the method works and it is widely used by intelligence agencies, mafia, certain religious sects, and so on. When a group has got enough power, it cannot stay hidden any longer. Then it will face a counteraction of the majority and temporarily it will loose, only to start the same again somewhere else. This is the vicious circle.
How to break the circle? Basically that is easy. All that is needed is that the members of the group stop helping each other and behave as they should behave in a democracy. Indeed, they should assimilate, which does not imply losing all of their own culture. They only have to avoid things like assassinating presidents, blowing up skyscrapers, attacking intelligence ships, creating wars in the Middle East, and supporting interests of a foreign country more than the country where they live. As nobody in their right minds would do such things anyway, it should be easy to avoid doing them. And of course, assimilating implies intermarriages and merging genetically to the population.
The other side of the problem is even easier: one country just should stop doing the wrong it has been doing and start acting in a fair way. But as the history teaches, nothing it ever learned from the history. The group wants to do what it has always done, and the results will be the same as they have always been.
As a conclusion, the book – all three of them – is worth reading, but now I will try not to touch this chosen problem anymore for a long time. It is the secret key and the inner meaning of the conspiracy, that I so long ago started to study, but it is now known to me and needs not be studied more.