Customer Reviews

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

5 star:		(60)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

To read this intellectually intoxicating book is suddenly to realize how unfree public discourse in 21st Century America really is.

MacDonald's argument is compelling and, in its broad outline, rather obvious. It is serious and brilliantly illuminating. It is in no way hateful or racist. But MacDonald says things that you just don't hear said, that never appear in our famously free media. MacDonald is a real hero for so boldly describing this elephant in the modern intellectual history of the West, an elephant that stands otherwise unnoticed and unremarked upon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I give the book 4 stars because it has a few irritating typos that shouldn't turn up in an academic book. "Principle" (fundamental) is not identical to "principal" (main). MP does not mean "Minister of Parliament" but "Member of Parliament" (this howler happens twice). And at the very end the author is confused on whether jews give between one quarter and a half of political contributions, or between a third and a half. Make up your mind, Dr. MacDonald, so that we might feel more comfortable believing you.

Kevin MacDonald applies the methods and perspectives of evolutionary psychology to arrive at some understanding of the relationship of the Jews to the Northern European peoples. The vehicle is his scholarly examination of several intellectual movements: Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, the Frankfurt school, and marxist political ideology. In a nutshell, he shows that each of these movements were unscientific frauds, each devised with an intention to undermine fundamental aspects of Western European culture. Unfortunately for us, each of them were powerful movements with widespread acceptance during the twentieth century. Happily, though, each of them are now thoroughly discredited among all, excepting only the most self-deceptive of the unregenerate professors.

This is a powerful book, required reading for those who want to learn how American society actually works. It shows how seemingly pure intellectual disputes about the grand questions of life are sometimes only instruments of competition for the evolutionary success of ethnic groups, and have little to do with science or any correspondence to reality. They often involve charismatic leaders and group cohesion, involving banishment and punishments for dissenters--they function much like a cult.

His eye-opening discussion of the motivation of the Jews in their relentless campaign to change American immigration laws in 1965 provides an important insight to the present mania for multiculturalism. His convincing argument is that Jews feel safer in a society in which they are only one of several competing minority groups, within a weakened European culture. The effect of this change in the law in the US is enormous, and MacDonald is correct in claiming that the National Jewish organizations continue in their efforts to effect a fundamental change in American society. And he rightfully exposes their hypocritical defense of Israel's immigration policies, which are hardly driven by a concern for greater diversity within their own land.

This book, while not quite a call to arms, is certainly a courageous call to wake-up!

Virtually all books written about 20th century history, politics, sociology and culture omit an objective analysis of a key factor: the influence of Jewish individuals and groups. In a work thoroughly researched and brilliantly written, Kevin MacDonald courageously investigates this critical factor of our past, present and future.

MacDonald's work is an indispensable Rosetta stone for understanding five of the key intellectual and political movements of the 20th century: communism, Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, Critical Theory and radical immigration reform.
One cannot easily dismiss MacDonald's conclusion that the leaders of the last century's most socially destructive movements were people with a deep sense of their Jewish identity. Much of his evidence is drawn from the Jewish leaders of the very movements under discussion. Quotations are deftly woven into the central thesis of the work: The foregoing movements, intrinsically hostile to European gentile culture, were developed and then energetically advanced by charismatic, secular Jewish authoritarian figures and their followers as part of an overall ethnic advancement strategy. Men such as Franz Boas, Sigmund Freud, T.W. Adorno and others founded universalistic-sounding ideological systems based on the thinnest veneer of science for the purpose of radically transforming gentile culture. The great Jewish minds were more than willing to sacrifice objectivity, science and the search for universal knowledge in the name of identifying and removing what they believed to be the root causes of anti-Semitism.

The criticisms of Western culture advanced by Freud and the Frankfurt School emphasized that the West was dangerously neurotic because of sexual repression, extant authoritarian social structures such as the two parent family, Christianity and, more generally, anything which might provide European gentiles with a sense of ethnic identity (e.g., nationalism in whatever form). The very institutions and cultural practices attacked as pathogenic and the root causes of anti-Semitism were widely practiced by the Jews themselves. By redefining strong traditional gentile practices as pathogenic, the Jews were able to give themselves a decisive advantage in the struggle to advance to the highest social positions. At the same time, they preserved Judaism as an unassimilated group in pursuit of its own advancement. From communism to the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, these predominantly Jewish movements have insisted that gentiles make radical suicidal social reforms in response to their interminable critiques. At the same time, Judaism has avoided practicing what it preaches. (Can anyone imagine a European professor at a prestigious private university traveling around telling other whites that they should only marry other whites? That professor would be stripped of tenure and bounced out in a gale of denunciations by her school. Yet this is precisely what Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Jewish studies at Emory, has done for years. In unison with other prominent Jews, she has argued against intermarrying with gentiles in order to keep Judaism pure. Today, it appears that only the Chosen People are allowed to advocate freely for the preservation of their own race and culture.)

MacDonald analyzes one of the foundational texts of modern sociology, The Authoritarian Personality, and shows that throughout, the primarily Jewish researchers draw all sorts of conclusions from their subjects without reference to any scientific norm. Whenever interviewees express a strong sense of love and admiration for their parents, the researchers conclude that they are hiding repressed feelings of anger and frustration. Conversely, children of broken homes who express ambivalent feelings about their parents are described as "healthy" and "honest". How are these conclusions drawn? The examples provided illustrate the duplicitous use and abuse of science for the purpose of destroying natural social institutions. Even today when the methods and conclusions of these movements have been adequately debunked by those working in the social sciences, they still carry authority in the popular mind thanks to the tireless mendacity of missionaries like Stephen Jay Gould. Advances in the fields of the social sciences and psychology have been set back by decades because of the dogmatic shams concocted by certain Jewish ethnic activists. Even now, whites and blacks alike have cast aside high investment childrearing in a two-parent family -- hotbed for gentile neuroses -- to pursue lifestyles destructive of individual and communal good in response to the recommends of 20th century patriarchs.

For those who would dismiss MacDonald's thesis, consider the current ethnic makeup of the neoconservatives surrounding Bush and who run influential opinion journals. In launching the recent war of aggression against Iraq, the Bush administration and its coterie of (heavily Jewish) scribblers at National Review, The New Republic and The Weekly Standard defended the indefensible by couching their reasons in universalistic moralisms. Consistent with the pattern of Jewish behavior described by MacDonald, they keep close ties to their own kind, contributing to the political doctrines of extreme right-wing Likudniks back in Israel (think of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et. al.). Likewise, they've systematically redefined America and her relationship to the world (shades of the anti-restrictionists discussed in Chp. 7 all over again) in order to present our republic as an international lone gun defender of democracy. This anti-historical interpretation conveniently serves the interests of Israel while leaving Americans to shoulder the long term and short term consequences. They're forever citing one another's works and publicly bolstering one another's viewpoints in an effort to present a front of reasonable minds rather than a mob of rabid ethnic hacks. In the vein of David Frum and Jonah Goldberg, they've denounced critics of neoconservative policy as anti-Semites regardless of whether warranted or not. From the far left to the far right, everyone who has questioned the motives of the recent war has been tried, condemned and sentenced to the loony fringe. Likewise, they have adopted white boys like Wm. Bennett and Fred Barnes to serve as shabbas goyim front men in their campaign to turn America into the military arm of Zionism. These behavior patterns are entirely consistent with those covered by MacDonald in his examination of the Big Five Kosher Ideologies in C of C.

The times have changed, but the players who are working against the interests and well-being of European-Americans have only grown more powerful. The duel for the soul of the West is an ethnic competition between two groups with very different histories, cultures, and desires.

As a former leftist Hollywood Jew (I wrote TV shows), I can say from personal experience that Prof. MacDonald is 100% correct in this book. The shows I worked on: Mary Tyler Moore Show, That Girl, & Love American Style, among others, were nothing more than Jewish tools (for the most part) to undermine the innocence of American WASP culture, ("Cultural Marxism" as Prof. MacDonald calls it).
I became disturbed with the studio editorial "rule" that children should be portrayed as sassy and disrespectful towards their parents. A few times I presented a script to my editor (also a Jewish guy) in which I had the child character behaving politely and respectfully towards his parents. The editor changed the lines to make the child bratty/sassy and then told me "... that's the way it should be done from now on, unless I tell you otherwise". That's when I started to see that something else was going on besides just making TV shows. I could see the changes in American society resulting from all this TV propaganda. I eventually left writing and became a teacher.

Kudos to Prof. MacDonald for his meticulous research in writing this book.

I read this text at the urging of a friend who is a university professor and former practicing attorney. My academic background includes graduate studies at an Ivy League organizational psychology program. I hold two graduate degrees with nearly 100 graduate credits in management science and decision theory as applied to individuals and organizations.

In many regards, this book is indistinguishable from any other social science text. It tells its story reasonably well, its assertions are backed with research from mainstream and often primary sources, and it casts a critical eye to the popular interpretation of its subjects.

Were this book treating any other subject, say the Episcopal/Anglican Church and its influence, the psycho-social history of Asian technologists, or a biography of a US president, there would be no controversy. Macdonald has however violated one of the only remaining taboos, and the outcry is (1) predictable and (2) consistent with his hypothesis regarding Jewish social norms that place an extreme emphasis on in-group loyalty and out-group suppression. How's that for "see I told you so?"

While shocked at first, my shock gave way to a new understanding of "the way the world works", one that makes consistent, integrated sense. More importantly, Macdonald's theory has predictive value and quite accurately predicts the flow of world events as they touch on Jewish interests.

Allow me to confess that I am a WASP. In fact, one could call me an American nativist. I like the America of my boyhood quite well, thank you. And I dislike what has become of my native country and her people. Despite this, I find this history to be quite flattering to the Jewish intellectuals who fostered it. Theirs was a massive undertaking, not a conspiracy in the least, but rather a common goal of creating a hospitable civilization for themselves. They used their "God given" gifts of intellect and persuasion to achieve their goal without need of the cruder instruments of coercion or violence.

The implications for the WASP is significant, of course, as these trends threaten our very civilization as we have known it -- or at least as those of us born before the 1970s once knew it. But Culture of Critque has supplied the extraordinary benefit of bringing the unseen currents to light, where they may be examined, cross-examined, debated and voted by an informed citizenry. One reads this book with simultaneous hope and fear for the future, depending on what remains of our old strength of character.

Fact 1: The US currently has hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East fighting an unwinnable war on "terror" by exporting "democracy" to the Middle East by invading sovereign countries.

Fact 2: Our southern border remains virtually unguarded and so many millions of illegal and legal third-worlders have already pored in that the white Americans who founded this country are set to become a demographic minority by 2050.

If either of these facts troubles you, or you at least find the coincidence curious, this book is a must-read.

According to the popular portrayal, Jews in the US are among our most intelligent, hardworking, educated and patriotic fellow citizens. Due to their unique history of unjust persecution in Europe, culminating in the barbaric Nazi Holocaust, they have been leading activists for social justice here, selflessly using their wealth and talent to help those less fortunate including other ethnic minorities. Indeed, the Jew has become something of a moral exemplar for the rest of us: their "civil rights" groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (of B'nai Brith) have taken it upon themselves to cooperate with law enforcement in fighting "hate crimes," and even offer to help parents keep their kids away from "racism" or other "hate speech" by "voluntary" internet filters. So praiseworthy are the Jews that even the few famous people who run afoul of them--from Marlon Brando to Dolly Parton to Prince Harry--inevitiably see the light and apologize in order to maintain any public legitimacy whatsoever.

Startingly juxtaposed against this hagiography is Kevin MacDonald's unique history of organized Jewish intellectual movements in the 20th century. To him, Jews are a small, cohesive minority with interests distinct from and often in conflict with ours. They have used their wealth, their vast media ownership and their dominant positions in academic social science and psychiatry to relentlessly push their own sociopolitical agenda, most notably to deligitimize or "pathologize" any sense of group solidarity on the part of white gentiles; to deny any inborn factor in ethnic group behavioral differences; to eliminate the national origin quotas in US immigration laws and darken forever the country's complexion; and generally to "critique" the cultural and moral traditions of Western civilization.

Why would the Jews, so prosperous in modern America, want to undermine its very foundations? According to MacDonald, Jews simply feel more comfortable in a multiracial, multicultural society. They believe that the absence of a dominant ethnic majority will minimize anti-Semitism, and that they can maintain their own group solidarity while the larger society is increasingly Balkanized. Thus, in MacDonald's model, the Jews have operated essentially "by way of deception," promoting radically egalitarian, universalistic ideas as good for all, when in fact they were only "good for the Jews," and quite clearly bad for white gentiles.

Who is Kevin MacDonald? A rabid anti-Semite? A neo-Nazi skinhead? Actually, he's a tenured California State University Professor of Psychology who studies human behavior in a Darwinian framework. His work is extensively researched and documented, and most significantly, his major claims about self-interested Jewish motives are in fact backed up by quotations from prominent Jews.

Beyond this, perhaps the best test of whether the Jews are as magnanimous as we're led to believe is whether they practice among themselves what they preach for the rest of us. To wit, contrast the open border US immigration policy Jews have agitated for with Israel's "law of return." Indeed, if multiculturalism is so wonderful here, why must Israel be permanently defined as a "Jewish state"? Go to the ADL's website and decide for yourself whether they're really interested in "fair treatment to all," or just well-funded, pro-Israel propagandists.

Also interesting are famous Jews like Alan Dershowitz, so ardently in favor of racial integration, who loudly bemoan Jewish "assimilation" and intermarriage in particular. Do white gentiles have a similar right to oppose assimilation with minorities? Or would any of us who do so be excoriated by the Jewish ADL, Jewish-run Hollywood and Dershowitz himself as evil or mentally ill "racists" and "haters"? This book will leave you with little doubt.

Due to his scientific perspective, MacDonald stops short of advocating any particular political solution to the policies causing the impending demographic eclipse of the white race. Nonetheless, "Culture of Critique" is a very worthwhile read. At the very least, next time you're wolfing down that breakfast burrito wondering what happened to you grandfather's America, you'll have a better sense of where it went and who dispatched it to oblivion.

If you have ever wondered about:
-why, in movies and on TV, Jews and their religion are portrayed in the most flattering terms. Although the more devout of them share many of the same intolerances as the Taleban do..female submissiveness, pork vilification, sabbath restrictions, co-religious marriage promotion etc....
-why every series from Friends and Seinfeld to Frasier has learned, noble Jewish characters who extol their religion while Christianity rarely gets a look-in unless as a subject of mockery..
-why small town USA is demonised as backward and bigotted (Bad Day at Blackrock, Breakdown, U-Turn, Texas Chainsaw Massacre etc. etc.)when it actually represents the essence of the generous American spirit...
-why three generations later, Germans are still being vilified on screen as a people (coming soon to your screens "Dirty Inglorious Bastards" from Tarantino featuring Germans being beaten to death with a baseball bat...anyone remember "The Dirty Dozen" featuring a blonde German wife being stabbed to death while her fellow women are later doused with petrol and incinerated?)...
-why the Holocaust is represented as a sacred icon that may only be debated at risk of imprisonment. Other holocausts don't get capital letters and rarely a cinematic mention...
-why the early Bolshevik leadership in the USSR was predominantly Jewish (Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev...even Lenin was part Jewish) as were the post-WW2 leaderships of Poland and Hungary...
-why the Hollywood Seven in the McCarthy years were principally Jewish
-why many of the '60s radicals were Jews; Abe Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Allan Ginsberg...etc...as were both organisers of Woodstock!!
-why Western culture (Anglo-Saxon and Christian) has been under sustained attack (or critique) from urban intellectuals since the '50s. The Boas school of Cultural Critique, The Frankfurt School of Social Research, even Freud's attack on sexual "repression" within Christian homes...
-the media's obsession with and promulgation of multi-culturism and homosexuality over the beliefs and wishes of the majority of Western citizens...
-the Democratic Party stance on immigration and the cross-party Jewish support for open borders...
-the unremarked on and hypocritical policies of Israel to ethnically cleanse its Arab population...even after the last Gaza outrage where 1,000 Palestinians in one week died at the hands of Israel 72% of Americans were recently polled as having a positive view of Israel...then you must read this book.
The basic tenet of the book is straightforward: while there is no "conspiracy" among Jews to control the media or espouse left-wing causes, nevertheless the resonant memory of the Holocaust and Jewish pogroms throughout history has instinctively driven Jews to support causes and schools of thought that attack the dominant non-Jewish host culture.
Only in a multi-cultural, quasi-Marxist (also a Jew!!)egalitarian society will Jews finally not stand out and thus be safe from persecution. Instead of attacking the West head-on Jews have been prominent in movements that vilify and discredit the major canons of Western civilisation, ie. Christianity, the family, the very ethnic make-up of the societies themselves.
All of this has been done in the hypocrytical light of Israel's and Judaism's obstinate and unrepentant unwillingness to "mix in" or indeed to be criticised in any shape or form.Jews are by no means the only people involved in these movements and McDonald is clear that there is no "conspiracy" per se. However, Jews are prominent within the various movements discussed.
Don't expect an easy read, sentences such as "Evolutionary conceptualizations of ethnocentrism emphasize the utility of ethnocentrism in group competition" (p.xxiv) or how about "The dynamic contextualist perspective conceptualizes development as a dialectical interaction between organism and environment"(p.40)!!!!!!!!That kind of writing had me reaching for the whiskey to numb the pain.
In fact, important as the message of the book is, its opaque dissertationesque style of writing is its biggest disappointment.
I mean, what is the point of crafting such a potentially incendiary message and then burying it in verbage that only the most persistent of readers will persevere through? That is why it only gets four stars.
There has been surprisingly little outrage about this book. Most probably those who are its targets are clever enough to know that Joe Sixpack is going to tune out before he's even read the contents page.Sad but true. For those of you of sterner intellectual mettle don't miss this read. It will shape your thinking for the rest of your life.

Everything one ever wanted to know about Freud, Boas, & the Frankfurt School, but was too afraid to ask--and even more afraid to find out. Read it and weep.