Kevin B. MacDonald (born January 24, 1944) is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi,

Oh, well that's just great!

Just to refer to Kevin B. Macdonald, who was himself endorsing the mentioned author:

Kevin MacDonald (1994, 1998a, b) argues that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy.” According to his theory, Jews are genetically and culturally adapted to promote their own group interests at the expense of gentiles. Jewish genetic adaptations include high intelligence, conscientiousness, and ethnocentrism.

MacDonald’s (1998a) most influential book, The Culture of Critique (CofC), claims that several major twentieth-century intellectual and political movements—including Boasian anthropology, Freudianism, Frankfurt School critical theory, and multiculturalism—were designed to destabilize gentile civilization for the benefit of Jews. The movements, led by “strongly identified Jews,” attacked group identity among white gentiles while promoting separatism and ethnocentrism for Jews. They “pathologized” anti-Semitism in order to squelch resistance to Jewish control.

Yep, Frank, what quacks like a duck...

But let's have an open mind with Apollodorus. He or she wasn't promoting the book, or?

But let's have an open mind with Apollodorus. He or she wasn't promoting the book, or? — ssu

He's from New Zealand, so he may not know that WW2 ended.

Well, I didn't know that and you can't really blame it on me, can you? Anyway, conspiracy theories aside, what in the book are you objecting to?

Or are you just upset that I started a discussion that's inconvenient to some people on the far left?

And I'm glad you aren't a communist terrorist although these days one can never know.

Absolutely! Civility and politeness and being nice to others is fundamental. Otherwise we get nowhere.

I agree in part with what you say. I do think that people get invested in things they don't know. On the other hand, I think that a big part of the general resentment, hatred and bigotry surfacing now are related to concern that people understand in the sense that, wages have been stagnant or declining for decades, jobs are less available and the super rich are gaining more and more power. People sense this and see it and are angry.

But they funnel such anger in the wrong direction: minorities, the vulnerable, "foreigners", etc., instead of concentrated power structures such as concentrated wealth and unaccountable bureaucracies.

And I'm glad you aren't a communist terrorist although these days one can never know. — Apollodorus

They lost too. You've got a lot of history to catch up on.

Well, I didn't know that and you can't really blame it on me, can you? — Apollodorus

Quick google searches are easy to do and then you can know where people come from.

Or are you just upset that I started a discussion that's inconvenient to some people on the far left? — Apollodorus

I hope such questions could be discussed. But I think the Site guidelines ought to be noted:

Posters:

Types of posters who are welcome here:

Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions (i.e. intelligent, interested and charitable posters).

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.

So no espousing... :up:

:up:

I haven't seen any "Nazi" views in the book and I wasn't discussing the book.

So, I don't see what your point is. It was YOU who brought up Nazism not me.

I'm glad you aren't a communist terrorist although these days one can never know. — Apollodorus

Frank is a Green Party terrorist and pelts people with fruits and vegetables, out of the psychotic belief that they need more fiber.

Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them. — ssu

It's a good thing Heidegger isn't a poster, then. Chortle. I'm incorrigible.

It was YOU who brought up Nazism not me. — Apollodorus

Wasn't it , immediately at the first reply on this thread?

Sorry, but if a book would be let's say about evolution, perhaps it would be good to know the author is a staunch creationist and a biblical literalist? Just saying...


Oh yes. Wonder how would Nietzsche do here.

Frank is a Green Party terrorist and pelts people with fruits and vegetables, out of the psychotic belief that they need more fiber. — praxis

Regular bowel movements are essential to a healthy world.

Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.

I understand that these are in the site guidelines but vehemently disagree that people should be banned for espousing them. Understanding how people like this think is critical to an overall understanding of any society.

Free speech was is a constitutional right that has been given more thought and is held in the standing it is for many reasons, paramount among them being that those who hold questionable views can be exposed to others. Otherwise, these folks become more and more isolated in their views and often more radicalized in their actions.

The idea is to help other people where you can, not isolate them in the hope that they will somehow disappear. The best hope we can have is to encourage discourse so such an individual may come to reconsider their position. A free and open society must allow freedom of speech for this and many other reasons.

I am under no legal obligation to know who an author from New Zealand is.

If a book is in a regular bookstore, it's on political psychology and has endorsements from psychology professors on the back cover, why the hell would you google the author?

And if you knew about the author why didn't you say something from the start?

You've only come up with it now because you didn't know what else to do to suppress the discussion. And you call others "Nazis"?

Anyway, I couldn't care less if they banned me!

If a book is in a regular bookstore, it's on political psychology and has endorsements from psychology professors on the back cover, why the hell would you google the author? — Apollodorus

Oh to be young and innocent.

Yeah, just like yourself. Have you come out of your closet yet or do you still spy "Nazis" under the bed?

Yeah, just like yourself. Have you come out of your closet yet or do you still spy "Nazis" under the bed? — Apollodorus

How could he see them under the bed if he was in the closet?

Imagination fueled by paranoia, that's how.

Imagination fueled by paranoya, that's how. — Apollodorus

Not sure why you're carrying on with this. You've already denied nazi sympathy. That's it. You're fine. Don't go back to 8chan. All is good.

I have not seen the book in question and could understand someone picking it up and not knowing about the author. I can even understand not finding out who the author is, although I would certainly check to see if the source is reliable.

The author may not be specific but I cannot see how someone who promotes Nazism and "occult fascism" could write a book on people, society, and politics and not have those things influence what he says. I doubt that one would need to be a trained in hermeneutics to see that influence, especially once one knows the authors background.

Don't tell me what to do. I'm not taking orders from Stalinists and far-left Fascists.

You can't come up with any reasoned arguments that's why you're inventing this "Nazi" conspiracy theory to suppress discussion. On a forum, too!

You guys are delusional.

I have not seen the book in question — Fooloso4

I see. You haven't seen the book, haven't read it, don't have a clue, but still talking and accusing people. Sounds about right, doesn't it? "Loony Left" is just a joke, for sure.

If it was just one of you I might understand. But you're ganging up on people like a pack of dogs, which in my opinion only proves my point. But never mind, you can keep your "discussion". I don't need it.

You haven't seen the book, haven't read it, don't have a clue, but still talking and accusing people. — Apollodorus

I do not need to see the book to find out who the author is. I am not accusing you of anything. I am simply pointing to what has been said about him.

Imagination fueled by paranoia, that's how. — Apollodorus

I’m far less paranoid since Trump was resoundingly rejected by the American people.

Oh to be young and innocent.

I don't disagree with any of that. However, the point the book seems to be making is that both the Left and the Right tend to describe each other in psychological terms, perhaps the Left more so.

"Leftist social scientists sought to show that conservative values are psychologically abnormal" p. 5

"Even the conservative Right [as opposed to the far Right] is generally described in psychological terms as 'regressive' and 'repressive'" p. 7

The term "right" seems to be acquiring a similar connotation to the way "left" was used in the past.

In any case, psychological analysis including "psychohistory" (I didn't know such a thing existed) seems to be increasingly applied to these issues. What is the explanation for this development? Despite all the talk of "unity", is society really becoming more and more pollarized?

Obviously, I've only just started reading the book but I must say it's very interesting and thought-provoking so far. — Apollodorus

To be clear, any attempt to psychologically map out an explanation for why and how conservatives and liberals or whatever political appellation believe what they believe is nonsense. It's about as vague as astrology and just as predictive.

any attempt to psychologically map out an explanation for why and how conservatives and liberals or whatever political appellation believe what they believe is nonsense. It's about as vague as astrology and just as predictive. — Maw

Brilliant idea. Next election we'll let the fascists and Neo-liberals use psychology to target advertising to directly appeal to their core supporters and the left can use astrology. I'm sure it'll work out just fine, what with them both being equally vague and non-predictive. What nonsense. There are positions on the scale between uncontrovertible fact and complete guesswork, matters needn't be one or the other.