Up to recently, Jews did not have a homeland, meaning they had—and still have—to live in countries where they’re minorities. Therefore they would historically favor societies that were open, multicultural, pro-immigration, and left-leaning so that they would not be persecuted by the host nation or be barred from attaining higher social and economic status.
Jews benefit from open, individualistic societies in which barriers to upward mobility are removed, in which people are viewed as individuals rather than as members of groups, in which intellectual discourse is not prescribed by institutions like the Catholic Church that are not dominated by Jews, and in which mechanisms of altruistic punishment may be exploited to divide the European majority.
To accomplish such a society, Jewish intellectuals moved mountains to promote human equality and the idea of racial equality (the inventor of the word ‘racist’ was Russian Jewish communist Leon Trotsky, born Lev Bronshtein). While pushing the notion of equality, Jews were hyper-aware of their own unique race and would exclude themselves from many of the prescriptions they offered to their host cultures. They made sure to help their “tribe” before all others.
Below are the main arguments and highlights of The Culture Of Critique:
“Race is a myth”
Famed Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas was instrumental in pushing the idea of nurture and culture over that of nature. We now speak of “cultural” effects upon nations instead of more genetically determined factors like race.
An important technique of the Boasian school was to cast doubt on general theories of human evolution , such as those implying developmental sequences, by emphasizing the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human behavior, as well as the relativism of standards of cultural evaluation.
[…]By 1926 every major department of anthropology was headed by Boas’s students, the majority of whom were Jewish.
[…]Ashley Montagu was another influential student of Boas. Montagu, whose original name was Israel Ehrenberg, was a highly visible crusader in the battle against the idea of racial differences in mental capacities. He was also highly conscious of being Jewish, stating on one occasion that “if you are brought up a Jew, you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic. . . . I think it is a good working hypothesis”. Montagu asserted that race is a socially constructed myth.
Freudian psychoanalysis as a gentile subversive movement
The book proposes that Sigmund Freud, a Jew, pushed psychoanalysis to break down traditional pair bonding in gentiles.
Many early proponents viewed psychoanalysis as a redemptive messianic movement that would end anti-Semitism by freeing the world of neuroses produced by sexually repressive Western civilization.
[…]Freud’s theory of anti-Semitism in Moses and Monotheism contains several assertions that anti-Semitism is fundamentally a pathological gentile reaction to Jewish ethical superiority.
[…]Freud managed to diagnose Western culture as essentially neurotic while apparently, on the basis of the argument in Moses and Monotheism, holding the view that Judaism represents the epitome of mental health and moral and intellectual superiority.
[…]…when [Western] institutions were subjected to the radical critique presented by psychoanalysis, they came to be seen as engendering neurosis, and Western society itself was viewed as pathogenic. Freud’s writings on this issue are replete with assertions on the need for greater sexual freedom to overcome debilitating neurosis. As we shall see, later psychoanalytic critiques of gentile culture pointed to the repression of sexuality as leading to anti-Semitism and a host of other modern ills.
[…]The psychoanalysts who emigrated from Europe to the United States during the Nazi era expected to make psychoanalysis “into the ultimate weapon against fascism, anti-Semitism, and every other antiliberal bias.”
The Frankfurt school was a research institute set up in Germany during the 1920’s. They were instrumental in developing an intellectual base for cultural Marxism under the “critical theory” framework.
At a deep level the work of the Frankfurt School is addressed to altering Western societies in an attempt to make them resistant to anti-Semitism by pathologizing gentile group affiliations.
[…]…entire thrust of the Frankfurt School’s view of science rejects the idea that science should attempt to understand reality in favor of the ideology that science ought to serve moral (i.e., political) interests.
[…]The end of anti-Semitism is thus viewed as a precondition for the development of a utopian society and the liberation of humanity— perhaps the closest that the Frankfurt School ever came to defining utopia. The envisioned utopian society is one in which Judaism can continue as a cohesive group but in which cohesive, nationalistic, corporate gentile groups based on conformity to group norms have been abolished as manifestations of psychopathology.
[…]In the 1970s, the Frankfurt School intellectuals continued to draw the fire of German conservatives who characterized them as the “intellectual foster-parents of terrorists” and as fomenters of “cultural revolution to destroy the Christian West”
[…]Jewish interests are also served by the Frankfurt School ideology that gentile concerns about losing social status and being eclipsed economically , socially, and demographically by other groups are an indication of psychopathology. As an exceptionally upwardly mobile group, this ideology serves Jewish interests by defusing gentile concerns about their downward mobility.
Jewish intellectual strategies to change culture
Judaism, because of its position as a minority group strategy committed to its own worldview, has tended to adopt ideologies in which the institutions and ideologies of the surrounding society are viewed negatively.
[…]…an important goal of Jewish intellectual effort may be understood as attempting to undermine cohesive gentile group strategies while continuing to engage in their own highly cohesive group strategy.
[…]…one of the themes of post-Enlightenment Judaism has been the rapid upward mobility of Jews and attempts by gentile power structures to limit Jewish access to power and social status. Given this rather conspicuous reality, practical reasons of economic and political self-interest would result in Jews being attracted to movements that criticized the gentile power structure or even advocated overthrowing it entirely.
[…]Another practical goal of Jewish political and intellectual movements has been to combat anti-Semitism. For example, Jewish attraction to socialism in many countries in the 1930s was motivated partly by communist opposition to fascism and anti-Semitism. The general association between anti-Semitism and conservative political views has often been advanced as an explanation for Jewish involvement with the left, including the leftist tendencies of many wealthy Jews.
[…]In the absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews are only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests.
[…]Silberman notes “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief— one firmly rooted in history— that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”
[…]Institutions that promote group ties among gentiles (such as nationalism and traditional gentile religious associations) are actively opposed and subverted, while the structural integrity of Jewish separatism is maintained. A consistent thread of radical theorizing since Marx has been a fear that nationalism could serve as a social cement that would result in a compromise between the social classes and result in a highly unified social order based on hierarchical but harmonious relationships between existing social classes.
[…]When an experiment in ideology and political structure fails, another experiment is launched. Since the Enlightenment, Judaism has not been a unified, monolithic movement.
[…]In the promised utopian societies of the future, the category of Jew-gentile would be of no theoretical importance , but Jews could continue to identify as Jews and there could be continuation of Jewish group identity while at the same time a principle source of gentile identity— religion and its concomitant supports for high-investment parenting— would be conceptualized as an infantile aberration.
Promotion of cosmopolitanism, individualism, and decadent lifestyles
A race to degeneracy hurts Jews less than gentiles because they still retain guiding ingroup values. Gentiles are left in the cultural winds that Jews help create.
Research summarized by Triandis on cross-cultural differences in individualism and collectivism indicates that anti-Semitism would be lowest in individualist societies rather than societies that are collectivist and homogeneous apart from Jews.
[…]In the long run, radical individualism among gentiles and the fragmentation of gentile culture offer a superior environment for Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy,
[…]Indeed, “the universities, ‘free’ professions, salons, coffeehouses, concert halls, and art galleries in Berlin, Vienna, and Budapest became so heavily Jewish that liberalism and Jewishness became almost indistinguishable”.
[…]People in individualist cultures, in contrast, show little emotional attachment to ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding yourself”. Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a prosocial, altruistic manner to strangers. Because they are less aware of ingroup-outgroup boundaries, people in individualist cultures are less likely to have negative attitudes toward outgroup members.
[…]Jews, as a highly cohesive group, have an interest in advocating a completely atomistic, individualistic society in which ingroup-outgroup distinctions are not salient to gentiles.
[…]…a fundamental aspect of Jewish intellectual history has been the realization that there is really no demonstrable difference between truth and consensus.
[…]…the cultural idealization of an essentially Jewish personal ethic of hedonism, anxiety, and intellectuality came at the expense of the older rural ethic of asceticism and sexual restraint.
Jews went through great efforts to conceal the predominately Jewish nature of their intellectual movements by having token gentiles be controlled spokespersons for their groups.
…because [their] movements were intended to appeal to gentiles, they were forced to minimize any overt indication that Jewish group identity or Jewish group interests were important to the participants.
[…]…to exert their influence, they were forced to deny the importance of specifically Jewish identity and interests at the heart of the movement.
[…]…after the collapse of the communist regime in Poland, “numerous Jews, some of them children and grandchildren of former communists, came ‘out of the closet’ ”, openly adopting a Jewish identity and reinforcing the idea that many Jewish communists were in fact crypto-Jews.
[…]Lyons (1982, 73) finds that “most Jewish Communists wear their Jewishness very casually but experience it deeply. It is not a religious or even an institutional Jewishness for most; nevertheless, it is rooted in a subculture of identity, style, language, and social network.
[…]Freud took great pains to ensure that a gentile, Jung, would be the head of his psychoanalytic movement— a move that infuriated his Jewish colleagues in Vienna, but one that was clearly intended to deemphasize the very large overrepresentation of Jews in the movement during this period.
The Jewishness of an assimilated Jew tends to come out when Jewry is threatened:
Jewish identity of even a highly assimilated Jew, and even one who has subjectively rejected a Jewish identity, may surface at times of crisis to the group or when Jewish identification conflicts with any other identity that a Jew might have, including identification as a political radical.
Their disproportionate participation in communism, Marxism, and socialism
Marxism is an exemplar of a universalist ideology in which ethnic and nationalist barriers within the society and indeed between societies are eventually removed in the interests of social harmony and a sense of communal interest.
[…]Jews perceived communism as good for Jews: It was a movement that did not threaten Jewish group continuity, and it held the promise of power and influence for Jews and the end of state-sponsored anti-Semitism.
[…]…many Eastern European Jews were impoverished at least in part because of czarist anti-Jewish policies that prevented Jewish upward mobility. As a result , a great many Jews were attracted to radical political solutions that would transform the economic and political basis of society and would also be consistent with the continuity of Judaism.
[…]The main weapons Jews used against national cultures were two quintessentially modern ideologies, Marxism and Freudianism, “both [of which] countered nationalism’s quaint tribalism with a modern (scientific) path to wholeness”
[…]Communism was good for Jews: It was a movement that never threatened Jewish group continuity, and it held the promise of Jewish power and influence and the end of state-sponsored anti-Semitism. And when this group achieved power in Poland after World War II, they liquidated the Polish nationalist movement, outlawed anti-Semitism , and established Jewish cultural and economic institutions.
[…]12 of the 20 NKVD directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including those in charge of state security, police, labor camps, and resettlement (i.e., deportation). The Gulag was headed by ethnic Jews from its beginning in 1930 until the end of 1938, a period that encompasses the worst excesses of the Great Terror. They were, in Slezkine’s words, “Stalin’s willing executioners”
[…]Jewish dissidents whose parents had run the Gulags, the deportations, and the state-sponsored famines, now led the “urgent call for social justice” [after Stalin’s crackdown on Jews].
Jews were originators of the “social justice” movement that we now have to deal with, but they lost control of it after Jews were no longer seen as minorities in need of social justice but as privileged whites who are part of the power structure. Many Jews are confused about how to handle a movement they helped create that is highly sympathetic to Palestinian causes.
Jews in neo-conservatism
Neoconservatism evolved from those on the farthest right of Stalin’s communist left, who eventually became anti-communist because of Soviet persecution of Jews after World War 2. They still retain liberal ideals like the denial of race and gender differences. Their most preached position of “Middle East democracy” is a euphemism for “let’s hurt Israel’s enemies.”
Jewish liberals promote domestic issues which help their interests in the USA while neocons promote foreign policies that support Israel under the false guise of conservatism. They don’t work together directly but seem to cover all the bases to help Jews both in and out of Israel.
…origins of neoconservatism as a Jewish movement are thus linked to the fact that the left, including the Soviet Union and leftist radicals in the United States, had become anti-Zionist.
[…]The New Left also tended to have negative attitudes toward Israel, with the result that many Jewish radicals eventually abandoned the left. In the late 1960s, the black Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee described Zionism as “racist colonialism” which massacred and oppressed Arabs.
[…]Part of the attraction neoconservatism held for Jewish intellectuals was its compatibility with support for Israel at a time when Third World countries supported by most American leftists were strongly anti-Zionist.
[…]In alliance with virtually the entire organized American Jewish community, neoconservatism is a vanguard Jewish movement with close ties to the most extreme nationalistic, aggressive, racialist, and religiously fanatical elements within Israel.
[…]…by far the best predictor of neoconservative attitudes, on foreign policy at least, is what the political right in Israel deems in Israel’s best interests.
[…]…neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the twentieth century—massive non-European immigration.
Jewish influence in America
Jewish groups, particularly the AJCongress, played a leading role in drafting civil rights legislation and pursuing legal challenges related to civil rights issues mainly benefiting blacks. “Jewish support, legal and monetary, afforded the civil rights movement a string of legal victories. . . . There is little exaggeration in an American Jewish Congress lawyer’s claim that ‘many of these laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into being by Jewish voters’ ”
[…]By 1968, Jews constituted 20 percent of the faculty of elite American colleges and universities and constituted 30 percent of the “most liberal” faculty. At this time, Jews, representing less than 3 percent of the population, constituted 25 percent of the social science faculty at elite universities and 40 percent of liberal faculty who published most.
[…] [Jewish intellectualism] has resulted in a society increasingly split between a disproportionately Jewish “cognitive elite” and a growing mass of individuals who are intellectually incompetent, irresponsible as parents, prone to requiring public assistance, and prone to criminal behavior, psychiatric disorders, and substance abuse. […]…neither communism nor fascism was good for Jews in the long run. But democracy cannot be trusted given that Weimar ended with Hitler. A solution is to advocate democracy and the trappings of traditional religious culture, but managed by an elite able to manipulate the masses via control of the media and academic discourse.
[…]Of considerable importance to the history of U.S. immigration policy has been the collaboration between Jewish activists and elite gentile industrialists interested in cheap labor, at least in the period prior to 1924.
Jewish progress in the 20th century
In the late 19th century the great bulk of the Jewish population lived in Eastern Europe, with many Jews mired in poverty and all surrounded by hostile populations and unsympathetic governments. A century later, Israel is firmly established in the Middle East, and Jews have become the wealthiest and most powerful group in the United States and have achieved elite status in other Western countries. The critical Jewish role in radical leftism has been sanitized, while Jewish victimization by the Nazis has achieved the status of a moral touchstone and is a prime weapon in the push for large-scale non-European immigration, multi-culturalism and advancing other Jewish causes.
[…]The victory over National Socialism set the stage for the tremendous increase in Jewish power in the post-World War II Western world, in the end more than compensating for the decline of Jews in the Soviet Union. As Slezkine shows, the children of Jewish immigrants assumed an elite position in the United States, just as they had in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe and Germany prior to World War II. This new-found power facilitated the establishment of Israel, the transformation of the United States and other Western nations in the direction of multiracial, multicultural societies via large-scale non-white immigration, and the consequent decline in European demographic and cultural preeminence.
[…]While constituting approximately 2.4 percent of the population of the United States, Jews represented half of the top one hundred Wall Street executives and about 40 percent of admissions to Ivy League colleges. Lipset and Raab (1995) note that Jews contribute between one-quarter and one-third of all political contributions in the United States, including one-half of Democratic Party contributions and one-fourth of Republican contributions.
Predictions for the future
One may expect that as ethnic conflict continues to escalate in the United States, increasingly desperate attempts will be made to prop up the ideology of multiculturalism with sophisticated theories of the psychopathology of majority group ethnocentrism, as well as with the erection of police state controls on nonconforming thought and behavior.
[…]History also suggests that anti-Jewish reactions develop as Jews increase their control over other peoples. As always, it will be fascinating to observe the dénouement.
[…]Presently white gentiles are the most underrepresented group at Harvard, accounting for approximately 25 percent of the students, while Asians and Jews constitute at least half of the student body while constituting no more than five percent of the population. The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.
Jews feel an intimate bond with each other as you may have already noticed by their professional networking circles like I have in Washington DC. Their actions, lives, and ideology are dominated by their race. While I don’t have a problem with that, I do find their subversive movements against gentiles hypocritical in that they would in no way advise or enact those ideas for Israel. Their morality, fairness, and justice is limited to whether they are dealing with fellow Jews or gentiles, and they will not push any idea or notion that may paint Jewish actions in a critical light.
The book makes clear that Jews conducted cultural undertakings that they believed would end anti-Semitism once and for all, but like most utopia builders, they forgot to account for the consequences, particularly how multiculturalism, a Jewish keystone policy, is beginning to cater to additional groups that are hostile to Jewish interests. Also, incubating social justice and then losing control of it has left out Jews as a victimized group and promoted Palestinian interests instead.
Their overshot explains why the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a neocon organization, has in the past two years begun attacking feminism, an ideology that developed with disproportionate Jewish support. They’re doing so because minorities are clamoring for a bigger piece of the victim pie and introducing anti-Semitic and pro-Palestine thought. Some Jews have calculated that at this point it’s better to introduce some truth and realtalk in gender issues (but not race) so that non-Jewish groups don’t gain too much power. Don’t be surprised if Jews throw multiculturalism under the bus at some point and claim that they are the true “white” Americans in need of protection from the anti-Semitic minority hordes.
In turns out there is no “Jewish conspiracy” at all. The Jewish people simply are hyper-nationalistic and ethnocentric and so live and work in a way that their group is benefited first. Their participation in every sociological movement is structured so that Jews are benefited outright, or at least not hurt. This would be no different than if your efforts to increase your income and well-being went to benefit your direct family.
What amazes me is how methodical, patient, and determined Jews are in promoting their group interests. Such efforts should be commended and modeled. Why isn’t there such a group of Americans that do the same for Christian interests? The answer lies in the fact that gentiles are less organized, less ethnocentric, more altruistic to outgroups, and more prone to selling out their people if presented with money and power, while Jews would only sell out after their ingroup needs are met.
A lot of red pill truth is concerned with dismantling myths that have been institutionalized by intellectual Jews over the past century. Not being able to highlight race or gender differences matches with the Jewish imperative because doing so will inevitably lead to “anti-Semitism” when differences between Jews and gentiles are pointed out concerning each group’s propensity for ambition, intelligence, ethnocentrism, identity, and socioeconomic class status. The Culture Of Critique explains where significant parts of our current cultural problems came from, connecting a lot of dots I had missing about why our culture got to where it is. The bulk of what I criticize about Western culture was in fact ushered in by intellectual Jewish movements.
Before opening this book, I wondered if it would turn me into a neo-Nazi, but instead it served as a historical truth bomb that has made me skeptical of the ideas, behavioral actions, and teachings of prominent Jews and where their true intentions and loyalties lie (i.e. if an American Jew would die for America before Israel). I’m also having trouble getting my head around the fact that such a small group would embark on a massive reconstruction of reality and ideological manipulations on the world’s people just to protect their group—and succeed. I feel both outrage and admiration at the same time.
Ironically, my parents were allowed to emigrate to the United States in part because of intense Jewish lobbying to loosen immigration laws. I probably wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for their efforts in creating a multicultural America. The neomasculine ideals that I believe are correct, and the traditions that I would want to bring back, would have likely prevented me from coming into existence and becoming an American citizen.
That said, when I witness the cultural destruction today and how it negatively affects my male peers, I feel not anger for what has transpired in the past but a deep focus on actions I can take in the present to preserve secular masculinity for men who don’t want to turn into a effete male who prays at the alter of a matriarchal power structure.
The Culture Of Critique is thoroughly cited, but the author often went on long tangents that veered away from his main arguments. It reads likes a textbook and does repeat itself often, but the author is patient in making sure you understand the gravity of the information he’s presenting. If you’re interested in how our culture got to this point in time, I highly recommend the book.
Read More: “The Culture Of Critique” on Amazon