Rating: 
Summary: Good analysis, wrong conclusions
Review: This book is more problematic than "The Culture of Critique." The author argues that 1) the raise of Christianity, 2) the Spanish Inquisition, and 3) National Socialism were all reactions to, and mirror images of Judaism. Theses 1) and 3) are untenable, thesis 2) is dubious. As far as National Socialism is concerned, much better case can be made that it is a mirror image, or rather a mutant, of Marxism: a) Marx was a socialist, Hitler was a socialist. b) Marxist propaganda target the working class, Nazi propaganda targeted the working class. c) Marx believed that Germany was the most advanced nation on earth, Hitler believed that Germany was the most advanced nation on earth. d) Marx advocated a German war against Russia, Hitler did attack Russia. e) Marx incited hostility against a small group - the bourgeoisie, Hitler incited hostility against a small group - the Jews. (In the minds of many these two groups were one and the same.) f) By his speeches Adolf Hitler was able to cause mass hysteria in the German population. But he had a predecessor: "Bebel was not a great orator; but his enthusiasm, tenacity, with which he kept attacking with his piercing voice the ears of his audience, monotonous movement as if constantly pushing something down people's throats or pounding something in their heads, he eventually hypnotized his listeners and deprived them of the ability to reason." [H.W.Steed: Through Thirty Years] When Adolf Hitler was asked what he would do with the millions of German communists he replied: "I will make Nazis from them." Furthermore the Nazis did not hate only the Jews. They hated the Slavs nearly as much, and in spite of their Nordic rhetoric they waged a war on Norway, Denmark (also Marx's idea), Holland, Belgium, and Great Britain. Several causes have been proposed to explain Nazism: the economic crises, German defeat in WWI, reparations. MacDonald did not make the case that Judaism is the main or only one. The most obvious explanation of the Christian anti-Semitism in the late Roman empire is religious, sectarian intolerance. All the material presented by the author in chapter 3 is consistent with this. Again, the author did not make his case. Christianity did not tolerate any heretics or unbelievers, and all other religions within its reach vanished - with the exception of Judaism. That must have driven the Christians crazy. The real question is: what attribute of Judaism makes it conversion resistant? The author manages to go through the discussion without mentioning the Jewish origins of Christianity. Was the objective of the new sect to create a new division in the society between the baptized and non-baptized instead of Jews/gentiles? Did it recruit gentiles merely for winnow dressing? This is what the author claims in "The Culture of Critique" about modern, Jewish dominated, radical leftist movements such as Marxism. In fact, the two Jewish prophets, two millennia apart, Jesus and Marx have one thing in common: apocalyptic messianism. Jesus believed that the end of the world was imminent. There are just as important differences between them. Apart from theism vs. atheism, Christians never attempted to hasten the cataclysm. The Marxists did just that and thus crossed the line into insanity. Of the two prophets the second one is false. Is the first one genuine? The jury is still out. Is Marxism a perverted variant of Christianity or is the idea of apocalyptic messianism inherently wrong? (The Eastern religions, Buddhism and Hinduism, offer salvation without a cataclysm and without intolerance.) Similar observations can be made about the Spanish Inquisition. There are other likely causes, and the Inquisition did not persecute only the Jews. The author seems to imply that Zionism = racism. Yet in "The Culture of Critique" he goes to great length to emphasize that restricting American immigration to people of Northern European stock is NOT racism. A Jewish state is one of the solutions that have been proposed to the Jew/gentile problem. It may well be it; after all the trouble started with the Roman conquest of Palestine. MacDonald does not propose any. The value of the book is in assembling material and stimulating thought processes rather than in its conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: Anti-Semitism and Pseudo-Science
Review: This book is probably the best of MacDonald anti-Semitic trilogy. This means it deserves zero stars, rather than minus 100, like the other two books. It is less heavy on pseudo-science than the other books and more about history than "evolution". It is however a terrible book on history of all the periods described. The book is extremely anti-Semitic, but also anti-Catholic and anti-Truth. It would take too long to debunk all of MacDonald's errors, but I will make three observations: 1 When discussing anti-Semitism among Moslems, MacDonald fails to notice that the Jewish people were not uniquely targeted for humiliation: Christians living in Moslem countries were not treated much better. 2 When talking of the massacres of Jews during the Crusade period, MacDonald fails to mention that Church officials tried to stop them. Quoting from "The Pursuit of the Millennium", by N. Cohn: "At this point [the popular crusades] St. Bernard intervened and, with the full weight of his prestige, insisted that the massacre [of Jews] must stop. Even St. Bernard, with his reputation as a holy man and a worker of miracles, was scarcely able to check the popular fury..." 3 All distortions in the book pale in confront of MacDonald characterization of National Socialism in Nazi Germany as a mirror image of Judaism! A chapter of the book has the title (really!) "National Socialism and Judaism as Mirror-Image Group Strategies". This is a truly incredible falsification of history. MacDonald is probably honest: in his final chapter he explains that self-deception is very useful if you are in the business of deceiving others: he must be a master at both.
Rating: 
Summary: World On Fire: The Quintessential Market Dominant Minority
Review: This book tries to argue that anti-Semitism has a logical basis, the basis being that somehow Jews, simply because they are a group, deserve to be discriminated against. The argument is so illogical as to betray understanding, since one could simply replace Jew with any ethnic group: Chinese, African-American etc, and draw the same moronic conclusions. This books central theme is trying to portray a scholarly analysis of Jewish behavior and how that behavior has made Jews both successful and targets of attacks. Yet the analysis has several major flaws. The book tries to pass off as scholarship a reasoning that says Jews have been mean to gentiles and that Jews therefore somehow deserved anti-Semitism. This analysis ignores something central. It is true that Jews, having moved to Europe during the Roman occupation in the first century A.D, began to cultivate certain habits of intermarriage and religious cohesion. Because Jews lived all over the old Roman empire they became perfect intermediaries for trade and eventually became involved in Academia and Banking, two strains that would give anti-Semites much powder for their arguments. Yet these traits are not in themselves explanatory of the ingrained, institutionalized hatred that some on the west had for Judaism. The Europeans accused Jews of being capitalists and communists. They accused Jews of both `sticking together' and `putting their heads where they don't belong'. They accused Jews of being both `religious fanatics' and `secular atheists'. Well how is it possible that all these accusations are true, certainly this book does not reconcile the fact that the accusations against Jews in Anti-Semitism have little factual basis and are more the creation of anti-Semites, who love to find worldwide conspiracies. This books Pseudo-scholarship is not really worthy of its subject. The author quotes many sources that supposedly portray anti-gentilism within Judaism, but the truth is no such thing exists. Probably the only worthwhile section of this book is the introduction where draws comparisons between Jews and the Chinese Diaspora or the Gypsies, if he had stuck to this theme maybe the book would have had more substance.
Rating: 
Summary: Anti-semitism book that is actualy anti-semetic itself.
Review: This book tries to argue that anti-Semitism has a logical basis, the basis being that somehow Jews, simply because they are a group, deserve to be discriminated against. The argument is so illogical as to betray understanding, since one could simply replace Jew with any ethnic group: Chinese, African-American etc, and draw the same moronic conclusions. This books central theme is trying to portray a scholarly analysis of Jewish behavior and how that behavior has made Jews both successful and targets of attacks. Yet the analysis has several major flaws. The book tries to pass off as scholarship a reasoning that says Jews have been mean to gentiles and that Jews therefore somehow deserved anti-Semitism. This analysis ignores something central. It is true that Jews, having moved to Europe during the Roman occupation in the first century A.D, began to cultivate certain habits of intermarriage and religious cohesion. Because Jews lived all over the old Roman empire they became perfect intermediaries for trade and eventually became involved in Academia and Banking, two strains that would give anti-Semites much powder for their arguments. Yet these traits are not in themselves explanatory of the ingrained, institutionalized hatred that some on the west had for Judaism. The Europeans accused Jews of being capitalists and communists. They accused Jews of both 'sticking together' and 'putting their heads where they don't belong'. They accused Jews of being both 'religious fanatics' and 'secular atheists'. Well how is it possible that all these accusations are true, certainly this book does not reconcile the fact that the accusations against Jews in Anti-Semitism have little factual basis and are more the creation of anti-Semites, who love to find worldwide conspiracies. This books Pseudo-scholarship is not really worthy of its subject. The author quotes many sources that supposedly portray anti-gentilism within Judaism, but the truth is no such thing exists. Probably the only worthwhile section of this book is the introduction where draws comparisons between Jews and the Chinese Diaspora or the Gypsies, if he had stuck to this theme maybe the book would have had more substance.
Rating:
Summary: The definitve work on antisemitism
Review: This is the first successful attempt to understand human behavior from an evolutionary perspective. It will set the pace for all subsequent evolutionary and cultural analysis of human behavior. It's truths will be rejected initially and debated vigorously but the only hope for minimizing the disastrous effects of holocaust lie with MacDonald.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Hurts.
Review: To Seth Frantzman- There is no anti-gentilism in Judaism? You ever read the Talmud? The parts about Jews being superior to the sub human goyim? If not,i urge you to look into it. No one wants their group to be portrayed in a negative light, but facts are facts, and we all have our faults. The Jews are no exception. Yes, the truth can be ugly, especially when we want to publicly disagree with it. But that comes with living in a free society.
| 
