My disagreement with Kevin MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy

Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, 07 May 2006 21:27.

I frequently find myself in the ironic position of defending a theory with which I disagree: Kevin MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. This is because, although I think it isn’t correct, his theory is coherent, important and continually attacked through misrepresentation—usually by mis-defining “group evolutionary strategy”. In other words, they disagree with his theory by refusing to address it. By contrast I differ as to its degree of relevance to Jewish history. Specifically, I disagree with this statement of MacDonald’s: “Fundamental to Jewish group integrity over historical time have been social controls and ideologies that depend ultimately on human abilities to monitor and enforce group goals, to create ideological structures that rationalize group aims both to group members and to outsiders, and to indoctrinate group members to identify with the group and its aims.” I don’t disagree this group evolutionary strategy has played a significant role in the evolution of Jewry but I do not believe it is fundamental to Jewish group (particularly genetic) integrity over historical time. My working hypothesis is that group cohesion is sufficiently valuable as a defense of individual genetic interest that it exists among all in their environment of evolutionary adaptation and a primary mode of group conflict is, not so much in direct competition for resources, but in the very genetic expression of group genetic interests. In other words, we’re seeing a battle carried out over the expression of genetic self-interest. This is much as a host and parasite struggle over whether the host is to express his own genetic self-interest or the interest of the parasite’s genes. The fundamental reason Jews thrived in European populations is because they were genetically dominant over those populations and hence their group phenotypes won the struggle for expression in the resulting human ecologies. This contrasts with their fate among populations with comparable or greater genetic dominance to Jews, such as in the Middle East and Africa. This also explains how Jews have continued to behave self-destructively with respect to immigration, civil rights and other movements benefiting, at the expense of Jews, those populations.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 08 May 2006 05:21 | #

I do not view your and MacDonald’s theories as incompatible.

Posted by random commenter on Mon, 08 May 2006 05:42 | #

James,
What is the mechanism the gene expression is controlled? Is this a memetic war- comparable to Adbuster’s complaints against corporations? If so, resistance to advertising goes with schooling and a good physics education makes one an anti-Semite.

I’ll turn around and reformulate your theory as the evolutionary effects of historical population density contribute to group members being able to control a society. Groups which spend time in high population density areas have more inclination to ‘control’ other members of society. The Jews spent time in the Nile river valley and the Euphrates river valley. Both were among the first places to develop agriculture and had high population densities for long periods of time. Presumably, an individual, family or group able to climb to the top of the social zuggarat and stay there would be more successful reproductively.
The more sophisticated forms of control don’t use force. They get subject individuals to believe in things which are bad for them and good for the controller. A population subjected to such memetic control would then become resistant to new ideas as a means of self-defense. That is, very stubborn in their beliefs. I believe this stubbornness is the reason why Jews continue to believe in immigration, civil rights, etc.

Posted by random commenter on Mon, 08 May 2006 05:52 | #

To point out the *obvious*, the agricultural river valleys and their higher population densities have run the Red Queen’s race for a long, long time….

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 08 May 2006 06:34 | #

What is the mechanism the gene expression is controlled?

Well done, Random—you have gotten to the point in four words.

What is the mechanism?

How does the dominant allele control the recessive within a chromosome?

How does the dominant allele control the recessive when they are not in the same chromosome but in different human bodies?

Why can’t a cohesive group of humans be part of that mechanism?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 08 May 2006 07:38 | #

If this were true James, would not German Jewry have triumphed, ceteris parabus, over National Socialism, according to KMac, a mirror image group evolutionary strategy?

How does Harpending & Cochran’s theory fit with the above? It appears the Sephardim are not the intellectual equivalents of their Askenazic brethren.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 08 May 2006 08:30 | #

random commenter writes: What is the mechanism the gene expression is controlled?

Well that is the current question before biologists since they seem to find that regulation of gene expression is the primary function of genetic differences between humans and other species. My expectation is that this holds for genetic differences among humans as well.

Certainly memes, despite being replicators, are themselves potentially extended phenotypes of genes. The regulation of their expression is therefore subject to mechanisms that have much in common with the mechanisms that regulate other phenotypes. Memes can also be thought of as akin to intestinal flora—potentially beneficial to those coevolved with them (or at least not as deadly) while being biological weapons against those not so coevolved.

PS: To those tempted to take my use of the term “dominance” in its strict Mendelian sense—of course that’s a minor part of what I’m discussing if it plays a role at all. The general role of controlling gene expression at the extended phenotypic level is what is important. “Dominance” in this sense is simply the ability to win the struggle for expression.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 08 May 2006 08:37 | #

Desmond Jones writes: If this were true James, would not German Jewry have triumphed, ceteris parabus, over National Socialism, according to KMac, a mirror image group evolutionary strategy?

There have been few victories more decisive in all recorded history. Germans are now essentially acting as their own death camp guards as they destroy their nation with immigration, laws regulating their freedom of expression, etc, while Jews have been setting up an ethnostate with many of the characteristics German National Socialists dreamed of creating for themselves.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 08 May 2006 15:13 | #

Desmond Jones writes: How does Harpending & Cochran’s theory fit with the above?

My expectation is that the purported evolution of behavioral characteristics such as high intelligence are most likely associated with the evolution of virulence, which is founded on horizontal transmission. This is founded on their nation migrating through evolutionary time among multiple national territories. This, in turn, is founded on their ability to express their ethnic genetic interests despite being dispersed.

This would swamp any evolutionary pressures from being restricted to certain trades. Indeed, being restricted to trades such as finance would facilitate mobility and horizontal transmission.

It appears the Sephardim are not the intellectual equivalents of their Askenazic brethren.

The movement of Jewry northward toward the less genetically dominant territories of Europe, was led by the Ashkenazim. They therefore had an earlier start at the .

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 08 May 2006 15:27 | #

To those tempted to take my use of the term “dominance” in its strict Mendelian sense—of course that’s a minor part of what I’m discussing if it plays a role at all. The general role of controlling gene expression at the extended phenotypic level is what is important. “Dominance” in this sense is simply the ability to win the struggle for expression.

Yes, and my point is that a superior group evolutionary strategy may be the mechanism that facilitates this dominance.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 08 May 2006 18:02 | #

Ben’s idea makes sense even using the H&C model. It kind of supercharges or turbocharges all that IQ horsepower, which also appears to be a facilitator in winning the struggle for expression.

There have been few victories more decisive in all recorded history.

Agreed, however, was it not facilitated by a group strategy, for instance the efforts of Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau in Washington?

Fred asks a very good question.

Posted by lucerne on Mon, 08 May 2006 19:52 | #

That’s a lovely sentiment, Søren. Do you talk that way to your Jewish colleagues at the U. of C.?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 May 2006 15:32 | #

lucerne,

Soren didn’t make it easy for you that time, I know, but with him you always have to look for the other angle. Irony is often a useful guide.

Posted by Kevin MacDonald 101 on Mon, 20 Jan 2020 05:12 | #

101: Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy & Anti-Semitism