Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

Race and Anthropology – Part 5

Franz Boas

More on how Franz Boas and other jews flocked to anthropology specifically to oppose a racial understanding of human nature.

The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences. – Ruth Benedict

Anthropology has from the beginning been dominated by jews. The purpose of jewish anthropology is to make the world safe for jews. One of the main tactics jews use is to disguise what they’re doing as a high-minded pursuit of more general interests.

A good example is found in Herbert S. Lewis’ The Passion of Franz Boas (PDF), published in “American Anthropologist” journal Volume 103, Issue 2, pages 447–467, June 2001.

Lewis defends Boas from criticism made by the children of the anti-”racist” revolt he led. The core of this defense is a recounting of Boas’ life-long efforts to thwart an understanding of reality which assigns significance to race. Some children of the revolution see Boas himself as a “racist” because he did not deny the existence of race. Others complained that he was only promoting jewish (or “white”) interests.

By the 1960s the many facets of the thoroughly though cryptically judaized culture of critique had pathologized and demonized and prevailed (at least in intellectual/academic circles) not only over “racist” Nordic champions such as Madison Grant, but Whites generally. As jewish involvement increased they shifted the understanding of race from real, to insignificant, to imaginary, to the self-contradictory anti-White/anti-”racism” of today – where “race” is supposedly a construct of the evil White race, who used (and still uses!) it to exploit and oppress all the other, innocent “people of color” (i.e. everyone who isn’t White).

Lewis’ defense amounts to the argument that Boas did great service at the start of this progression. His hand-waving and smoke-blowing was, as usual for jews, used to obscure the Who/Whom – who was served by whom and at whose expense – behind a pretense that everyone benefited.

Lewis concludes by quoting Michel de Montaigne:

I see most of the wits of my time using their ingenuity to obscure the glory of the beautiful and noble actions of antiquity, giving them some vile interpretation and conjuring up vain occasions and causes for them. What great subtlety! Give me the most excellent and purest action, and I will plausibly supply fifty vicious motives for it. God knows what a variety of interpretations may be placed on our inward will, for anyone who wants to elaborate them.

This criticism applies all the more to contemporary anti-”racist” interpretations of the White men who were beginning to understand the significance of race. Boas and his tribe have prevailed, for a while at least, by pathologizing and demonizing their enemies while disguising their own motives, thus obscuring the racial nature of the conflict.

One substantial criticism of Boas and the broader jewish influence in anthropology and social science was ignored by Lewis.

Kevin MacDonald’s The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences, is Chapter 2 in “Culture of Critique”, subtitled “An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements”, first published in 1998:

Several writers have commented on the “radical changes” that occurred in the goals and methods of the social sciences consequent to the entry of Jews to these fields (Liebman 1973, 213; see also Degler 1991; Hollinger 1996; Horowitz 1993, 75; Rothman & Lichter 1982). Degler (1991, 188ff) notes that the shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences resulted from an ideological shift rather than from the emergence of any new empirical data. He also notes that Jewish intellectuals have been instrumental in the decline of Darwinism and other biological perspectives in American social science since the 1930s (p. 200). The opposition of Jewish intellectuals to Darwinism has long been noticed (Lenz 1931, 674; see also comments of John Maynard Smith in Lewin [1992, 43]). 1 In sociology, the advent of Jewish intellectuals in the pre–World War II period resulted in “a level of politicization unknown to sociology’s founding fathers. It is not only that the names of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim replaced those of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, but also that the sense of America as a consensual experience gave way to a sense of America as a series of conflicting definitions” (Horowitz 1993, 75). In the post–World War II period, sociology “became populated by Jews to such a degree that jokes abounded

It was jews who were joking.

An endnote refers to Lenz’s observation concerning the “jewish fondness for Lamarkism”:

The jewish inclination toward Lamarckism is obviously an expression of the wish that there should be no unbridgeable racial distinctions.

MacDonald adds:

The obvious interpretation of such sentiments is that Jewish intellectuals opposed natural selection because of possible negative political implications. The suggestion is that these intellectuals were well aware of ethnic differences between Jews and Germans but wished to deny their importance for political reasons—an example of deception as an aspect of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy (SAID, Chs. 6–8).

Lenz states that the Jewish opposition to discussion of race “inevitably arouses the impression that they must have some reason for fighting shy of any exposition of racial questions.”

Back to MacDonald’s main text:

This chapter will emphasize the ethnopolitical agenda of Franz Boas, but it is worth mentioning the work of Franco-Jewish structuralist anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss because he appears to be similarly motivated

Lévi-Strauss interacted extensively with Boas and acknowledged his influence (Dosse 1997 I, 15, 16). In turn, Lévi-Strauss was very influential in France

Levi-Strauss’s most significant works were all published during the breakup of the French colonial empire and contributed enormously to the way it was understood by intellectuals. . . . [H]is elegant writings worked an aesthetic transformation on his readers, who were subtly made to feel ashamed to be Europeans. . . . [H]e evoked the beauty, dignity, and irreducible strangeness of Third World cultures that were simply trying to preserve their difference. . . . [H]is writings would soon feed the suspicion among the new left . . . that all the universal ideas to which Europe claimed allegiance—reason, science, progress, liberal democracy—were culturally specific weapons fashioned to rob the non-European Other of his difference. (Lilla 1998, 37)

Degler (1991, 61) emphasizes the role of Franz Boas in the anti-Darwinian transformation of American social science: “Boas’ influence upon American social scientists in matters of race can hardly be exaggerated.” Boas engaged in a “life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups. He accomplished his mission largely through his ceaseless, almost relentless articulation of the concept of culture” (p. 61). “Boas, almost single-handedly, developed in America the concept of culture, which, like a powerful solvent, would in time expunge race from the literature of social science” (p. 71).

Boas did not arrive at the position from a disinterested, scientific inquiry into a vexed if controversial question. . . . There is no doubt that he had a deep interest in collecting evidence and designing arguments that would rebut or refute an ideological outlook—racism—which he considered restrictive upon individuals and undesirable for society. . . . there is a persistent interest in pressing his social values upon the profession and the public. (Degler 1991, 82–83)

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
4 Comments  comments 

Are you being psy-opped?

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
39 Comments  comments 

Sandy Hook, Part 2

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
24 Comments  comments 

Episode 29 – The High and Low of Jewish Money Power

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

Race and Anthropology – Part 4

Franz Boas

In Race and Anthropology – Part 1 I mentioned Franz Boas in passing, giving a preview of where the discusion was going. Here we’ll finally review in detail who Franz Boas was and what he did.

Franz Boas, from Wikipedia:

Franz Boas (/ˈfrɑːnz ˈboʊ.æz/; July 9, 1858 – December 21, 1942)[2] was a German-American anthropologist and a pioneer of modern anthropology who has been called the “Father of American Anthropology”[3][4] and “the Father of Modern Anthropology”.[5] Like many such pioneers, he trained in other disciplines; he received his doctorate in physics, and did post-doctoral work in geography. He applied the scientific method to the study of human cultures and societies; previously this discipline was based on the formulation of grand theories around anecdotal knowledge.

Although his grandparents were observant Jews, his parents embraced Enlightenment values, including their assimilation into modern German society.

Boas vocally opposed anti-Semitism and refused to convert to Christianity, but he did not identify himself as a Jew;[8] indeed, according to his biographer, “He was an ‘ethnic’ German, preserving and promoting German culture and values in America.”

Boas was appointed lecturer in physical anthropology at Columbia University in 1896, and promoted to professor of anthropology in 1899. However, the various anthropologists teaching at Columbia had been assigned to different departments. When Boas left the Museum of Natural History, he negotiated with Columbia University to consolidate the various professors into one department, of which Boas would take charge. Boas’ program at Columbia became the first Ph.D. program in anthropology in America.

In his 1907 essay, “Anthropology”, Boas identified two basic questions for anthropologists: “Why are the tribes and nations of the world different, and how have the present differences developed?”

Boas also presented himself as a role model for the citizen-scientist, who understand that even were the truth pursued as its own end, all knowledge has moral consequences. The Mind of Primitive Man ends with an appeal to humanism:

I hope the discussions outlined in these pages have shown that the data of anthropology teach us a greater tolerance of forms of civilization different from our own, that we should learn to look on foreign races with greater sympathy and with a conviction that, as all races have contributed in the past to cultural progress in one way or another, so they will be capable of advancing the interests of mankind if we are only willing to give them a fair opportunity.

Where Boas was at odds with Madison Grant, eugenics and race science:

His most important research in this field was his study of changes in body form among children of immigrants in New York. Other researchers had already noted differences in height, cranial measurements, and other physical features between Americans and people from different parts of Europe. Many used these differences to argue that there is an innate biological difference between races. Boas’ primary interest—in symbolic and material culture and in language—was the study of processes of change; he therefore set out to determine whether bodily forms are also subject to processes of change. Boas studied 17,821 people, divided into seven ethno-national groups. Boas found that average measures of cranial size of immigrants were significantly different from members of these groups who were born in the United States. Moreover, he discovered that average measures of cranial size of children born within ten years of their mothers’ arrival were significantly different from those of children born more than ten years after their mothers’ arrival. Boas did not deny that physical features such as height or cranial size were inherited; he did, however, argue that the environment has an influence on these features, which is expressed through change over time. This work was central to his influential argument that differences between races were not immutable.

Madison Grant mocked Boas’ result in The Passing of the Great Race, but the case that it was an outright fraud has only been made recently. In 2002 the raw data was reexamined and the results were not as Boas claimed. Wiki mentions the controversy but misrepresents the claims on each side. More on this later.

Boas did not try to claim that race and racial differences do not exist. He argued instead that race is plastic – that the observable differences are not immutable. This is the thin edge of the, “Race may exist, but it isn’t really important.” line of argument.

As the Wiki article notes, this is considered Boas’ “most important research”. This sentiment is echoed elsewhere by those who agree with him.

Wiki relates an anecdote concerning Boas’ strong identification with jews. Boas delivered a speech at a black university in Atlanta in 1906 in which he described several historic situations that had “brought different peoples into an unequal relation”:

the best example, for Boas, of this phenomenon is that of the Jews in Europe:

Even now there lingers in the consciousness of the old, sharper divisions which the ages had not been able to efface, and which is strong enough to find — not only here and there — expression as antipathy to the Jewish type. In France, that let down the barriers more than a hundred years ago, the feeling of antipathy is still strong enough to sustain an anti-Jewish political party.

Boas’ closing advice is that Negroes should not look to Whites for approval or encouragement, because people in power usually take a very long time to learn to sympathize with people out of power.

French nationalists rightly recognize that the jews who happen to live in France consider themselves a separate people who care first and foremost for themselves as jews and jews in general. Just as Boas did. Europeans have long criticized jews for constituting a “nation within a nation.” European nationalists are today routinely pathologized and demonized for doing so.

Contemporary headlines reflect the fact that jews are the people in power today. Hollande vows to wipe out anti-Semitism, 2 Nov 2012:

“France will hunt down terrorism … by all possible means,” Hollande said during an emotional service on Thursday at the Ohr Torah school in Toulouse, where the four were shot dead by Al-Qaeda-inspired killer Mohamed Merah on March 19.

“My country will not be weak in fighting terrorism,” he said.

Pledging to “eradicate” anti-Semitism, Hollande promised all-out measures to ensure the security of Jews.

“Safeguarding their safety, their integrity and their dignity is a national cause…. It is not only the affair of Jews but of all French people.”

“Let us learn the lessons of this ordeal for humanity, for mankind,” he said, adding: “We shall never forget.”

In the US in the early 20th century, Boas sympathized with blacks, specifically as a jew, and collaborated with them against Whites.

One early reaction to the news of Boas’ cephalic index data fraud came from Sam Francis in 2002. Franz Boas – Liberal Icon, Scientific Fraud:

In political terms, if human beings have few or no “fixed characters” and are shaped by the social environment, then what we know as modern liberalism is in business. So is communism, which also assumes that human beings can be transformed by manipulating the social environment.

Francis’ conclusion:

Not only has a giant of modern social science—and a pillar of modern liberalism—tumbled from his pedestal, but the dogma that man is merely a blank slate, on which state bureaucrats and social engineers may scribble whatever ideologies they please, has toppled with him.

If that dogma really can be killed, then much of the tyranny and chaos it has helped create will die with it.

Ten years on I think it’s safe to say this was overly optimistic.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
3 Comments  comments 

How Extensive is “Holocaust” Photo-Fakery?

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 

tWn on Twitter

Published on January 6, 2013 by in Blog

The White Network is now on Twitter.

Starting with this post, twitterfeed.com should automatically take each new entry from our RSS feed and make a tweet out of it.

We’re new to this, so we’ll see how it works out.


 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off  comments 

How Big of a Hoax was the Sandy Hook “Massacre?”

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
35 Comments  comments 

The Eagle Soundtrack

Published on January 4, 2013 by in Blog

We hope you enjoyed last month’s special program, 20 Christmas and Winter Solstice Songs. This month’s special program features music from The Eagle, and will be broadcast each Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday starting at 9PM ET and streaming until the next scheduled program. Enjoy.

The Eagle (Soundtrack) by Atli Övarsson:

Has The Eagle Landed?
Review by Richard Buxton

As an adaptation of ROSEMARY SUTCLIFFE’S novel THE EAGLE OF THE NINTH, director KEVIN MACDONALD brings the tale of a Roman soldier and his quest to retrieve the lost emblem of his father’s lost legion. The setting alone conjures vivid memories of the genre’s golden age and the numerous classic scores it has produced. Such history would suggest that films depicting the era of the Roman Empire provide a wealth of golden material and inspiration from which composers can feed. In terms of the blossoming career of ATLI ÖRVARSSON, this trend holds true. Having scored a number of worldwide releases, ÖRVARSSON’S work on THE EAGLE marks what is arguably his strongest effort in film scoring thus far.

The score introduces itself with the brooding “Testudo” (1), a heavily percussive piece strongly reminiscent of the more action-oriented compositions heard in GLADIATOR. A strong but ultimately predictable opening sets up the similarly evocative “Highlands” (2). The string harmonies dominated opening is swiftly replaced by the moody and atmospheric vocals that again bring ZIMMER’S score to mind. It is in this track however, that ÖRVARSSON’S provides the slightest reveal of the scores unique selling point. Slight hints of a Celtic influence appear throughout the opening moments of the track and these are fully reinforced in the following track, “The Return of the Eagle” (3). The influences can be heard instantly, providing an energetic and refreshing rhythm as the various instruments, including bagpipes come to the fore. The string and bagpipe motif alone might give some listeners the urge to take up dance lessons, but the swift emergence of the string section accompaniment enhances the cinematic flavour with it’s rising pattern, giving the track a pleasant and uplifting nature and cementing itself as one of the highlights of the score.

The first instance of what presents itself as a theme can be heard in “The Ninth Legion” (4), an ominous piece accented by a male choir that rises into a sweeping string theme. The theme reappears occasionally throughout the score in the tracks “I Will Return” (12) and “Beyond The Territories” (18), with both providing their own unique take on the theme, the former in the aforementioned Celtic demeanour. It is in these tracks that THE EAGLE finds its identity, rather than the less subtle and more dramatic action pieces. “May Your Souls Takes Flight” embodies this spirit as the bagpipes signal a rousing, string-propelled finale.

When ÖRVARSSON does venture into the action sequences of the film, the music does take a step down into the predictable. The music is suitably invigorating, but offers little more than has been heard countless times in similar films over the years. Tracks such as “North of the Wall” (5) emphasize this in their predictably percussive roots. The Celtic elements do provide reason for listeners to give the tracks more attention than they otherwise might however. The climactic moments of “Fleeing The Village” (15) are of a pleasingly fresh disposition and provide incentive for repeat listens.

Outside the previously mentioned tracks, THE EAGLE provides extensive underscore in the likes of “The Seal People” (9), “Searching” (10) and “Eagle Lost, Honour Lost” (14), all of which are fittingly atmospheric but are unlikely to be the catalyst for audiences to return to the score on multiple occasions.

The Eagle Soundtrack HD (transcoded from YouTube)

(Note: There is no audio download for this program – please tune in via the MP3 Stream.)

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

Episode 28 – Jew Versus Non-Jew in New York Finance

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 
© the White network