Dutton’s article is so painfully shallow andnot surprisingly the docent of anthropology at Oulu University has no training in either biology or psychology. His background is in theology yet he peppers a paper with terms like GFP and group selection, along with multiple assertions which have no data or argument to back them and gets published in ‘Evolutionary Psychological Science’.
“It’s remarkable how much intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is great”
Wow, so many rabid racist responses. Just check your Ancestry dot com DNA results. A good number of American Jews are actually European. How many of us have African ancestry we didn’t know about before.
It turns out that Dutton’s suspicion of the author of this article being Jewish was spot on:
“As a young Jew…” – Michael Schulson
And so even though the author of this extremely biased hit piece tried to portray ethnocentric Jewish deception and subversion of White Gentiles as a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory, all of the dishonest and deceptive critics of MacDonald’s work that he cited (Cofnas, Pinker, Tuchmanm, and the author himself) are Jewish – which substantiates MacDonald’s argument perfectly.
It seems that you Jews are mostly banking on the masses being too lazy to read MacDonald’s work, Cofnas’ extremely weak critique, and MacDonald’s convincing defense of his work.
Within the next 100 years, it will become clear to most people that the Jewsish people are the descendants of Greeks and Macedonians of Alexander’s armies, and that the Hebrew Bible is largely based on Greek history and philosophy. At that time it will be impossible to argue any kind of “racial”differences between “European” and “Jews.”
Maybe then we can start destroying the idea that skin pigmentation also divides us into so-called races.
Anyone who does business, law, or charity work with Jews will tell you they act as a tribe in competition with everyone else and hate when that’s pointed out. The excuse they were forced to loan money in the middle ages doesn’t exactly hold water 1,000 yers later when Goldman Sachs exploits working class and middle class Americans. Maybe they should join the world community and they would be treated better.
It’s like always: to prove that the Jews are the blameless scapegoats of history, one way or another. Attached to this world, everything “just” happened to them. With this premise an infinite onthological problem is created, for us all!
One day the Jewish mindset will come to understand that everything that happened to them was of there own making, breaking the mould of that very mindset itself.
Schulson, the author-journalist of this piece, certainly failed to provide many of the facts or arguments contained in the
underlying papers (the book and critiques both for and against) about which he is reporting. Yet the commentator-critics here, either knowingly or ignorantly, fail to understand that the article is about the academic handling of and controversy surrounding McDonald’s “Culture of Critique” (“Critique”). In short, the article is about the academic environment surrounding this particular “science,” not about the actual notions in Critique.
However, in reviewing the comments section, one can easily see that the critics herein are not interested in the science of Critique either, as none of them have presented any citations to that work or the articles both against and for. While not all on the “alt-right” are neo-Nazis, those commenting above are. The references to Jews and their ethno-centrism are pure racism. MacDonald’s idea, that Jews penetrate a Western society and then destroy it from within in order to improve their own ethnic group’s power, at the expense of that society at large, is a Nazi idea in modern times (with a long historical pedigree) and is made laughable (especially in the case of the United States) with even a cursory knowledge of history. American dominance in science and technology can, in almost every case, be traced directly back to Jews. American dominance of nuclear weapons and energy can be traced to Einstein and Oppenheimer and a dozen other Jews. A cursory glance at the Nobel Prizes given (to Americans) for scientific discovery is a Who’s Who of (American) Scientific Jewry. Wall Street’s dominance of international business, commerce and finance, which has brought uncountable riches to America is a tale of Jewish ascendancy. The architect of King Dollar was a Jew, and his disciples (at the Federal Reserve) have kept the Dollar the world’s reserve currency ever since. Technology, i.e. applied science, is a mostly Jewish affair: Apple (Wozniack), Facebook (Zuckerberg), Google (Brin) and I could go on for days. And, also, the “American Dream”(tm) was wholly minted in Jew-dominated “Hollywood.” American culture was crafted (Levi’s jeans) and presented (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios) to the world by Jews. In short, Jews made America the dominant military, economic and cultural power of the 20th and 21st (so far) centuries. Before that, it was Jewish capital that financed both Great Britain’s empire and Prussian economic ascendancy. Yet, MacDonald and his ilk spend their lives tracking down a few irrelevant Jewish atheists and feminists and claiming that these nobodies tear down America’s (Jew-driven) might. Please, racists, choose another group to focus your froth upon. Jewish accomplishment is too well documented. Oh, and for the one critic suggesting Jews should be more deferential to those “letting them in” to America — we arrived on the same boat you did. Unless you were a Native American practicing Stone- and Bronze-age culture and technology, I think your comment is pure, unadulterated irony.
How does critiquing a dissertation in and of itself legitimize it? I suggest that it only gains legitimacy if it successfully stands up to it’s critics. This being so it seems to me that this argument or assertion puts the cart before the horse in that it starts from the untested premise that it’s illegitimate. It seems to be a clever ploy to censor unwanted content.
The first misrepresentation comes early: “…contentious (and largely disproven) topics like eugenics, IQ, and the biology of racial difference.”. “Disproven”, by whom? The word is “unfashionable”.
Your smears don’t appear to be working anymore. Labeling something “anti-semitic” doesn’t mean it is, but even if it is (according to you), it doesn’t mean the work is not accurate. Dr. MacDonald’s books were given a peer review by his fellow academic Dr. Frank Salter (also, not a Jew) and Dr. Salter endorsed Dr. MacDonald’s books as good research. Dr. MacDonald’s complaint was not that other scientists criticized his works. He wanted criticism, but something should not be criticized without being read, and under hostile Jewish power, other academics would not read his books. Have you?
After all the problems Jews have had over the centuries, they continue to alienate the peoples of the countries that invited them to their countries and now it appears to be happening in the USA. The disgusting laws that Jews have enacted in Europe to jail anyone that criticizes them are not in place here yet, although Jews are pushing for them. This will only make things worse if Jews continue to exercise their power in such a hostile way, until they are eventually stripped of their abusive power.
You smear the great historian David Irving too. Mr. Irving’s research and many bestselling books have received enthusiastic endorsements by fellow leading historians and the mainstream media. It was only when organized Jewry organized a worldwide campaign to defame him and destroy his career that the extreme hostility to Mr. Irving began. The Jews actually had West Point and other military academies remove Mr. Irving’s books from their teaching curriculums. That is how good his books are and that is how hard they work to cover up the truth.
After Mr.Irving made a major discovery in Soviet archives that would answer many questions about WW II, Josef Goebbels many years of diaries, Jews bullied the publisher of Mr. Irving’s book on the diaries into refusing to publish the book that they had already submitted for awards. Here is one of them on TV arguing to censor the book.
Why did you write this article if you’re just going to misrepresent the facts?
You label people, strawman their views, and dismiss entire fields of science in parenthetical asides. Why anyone would even bother to engage in this hitpiece respectfully is beyond me. This article is either libel or gross negligence on the part of the “journalist,” the editor, and the publisher.
There are no scientists now nor in the past who have ever argued that all members of an ethnic group share a trait in common. The blurred lines of color and ethnicity obfuscate, in a rigorous context, what is colloquially understood as racial categories. The conversation has moved beyond this yellow journalism of debunk by mere suggestion. If you want data and can understand statistics, your time is better spend using critical thought to read the facts and debunk them yourself.
This piece will do you no favors, offers no substantial rebuttal, and is in truth just the author’s obligated signal of allegiance.
If you think this comment is hypocritical, you understand the meta point I intended to make.
Unlikely. However, I am going to say with 100% certainty that you have one.
Definitely an ethnic motive with Cofnas and Pinker
Comments are closed.