What is Semitism?

[Rev.WillWilliams]

One of my favorite questions to some unthinking paleface who decides to introduce the word "antiSemitism" into a discussion with me.

Can there be antiSemites without Semitism any more than there can be anti-communists without communism? That's a real stumper, one that the uncritical judeophile has trouble wrapping his mind around. So I define Semitism for him: Jewish supremacy, or, if he prefers, Judeofascists. If the one you are debating hasn't left the field by then, ask him to please try and explain away a few other glaring inconsistencies about his "antiSemite" buzz term -- and there are many, which should be on the tip of your tongue.

There is no reason our side should EVER lose a substantive debate with either a Xian herd animal or a Jew. Thus the Jewish maxim:

Never forgive, never forget, and NEVER debate the goyim!

So, in that context, digest the following statement from Dr. Wilson's article (below): "Nazis were antisemitic because of what Jews did to them," and put a Creator's spin on it for intellectual exercise.

PS. It would help if one will first read the works of Drs. Wilson (DS and EO, especially) and MacDonald in order to speak on a subject like evolutionary group theory from an informed point of view.

---

David Sloan Wilson Comments
    http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/slate-wilson.html

    The Debates

    Two Comments by David Sloan Wilson

    Selfish Groups and Adaptive Fictions: Two Themes Addressed by Kevin
    MacDonald Worth Defending

    This is David Sloan Wilson, the "leading advocate of group selection
    theory" mentioned in Shulevitz's article on Kevin MacDonald. The
    reason I did not return her phone call (she only made one) is that I
    was out of the country. I think that Kevin is being unfairly
    criticized. In fact, it is shameful how quickly those who are
    sensitive to being demonized are willing to demonize others. Even
    evolutionary psychologists, who have experienced their share of
    persecution in academic circles, seem more concerned to protect
    their own reputations than to defend the work of their colleague.

    I have read Kevin's first book and will shortly read the other two.
    When I do, I won't be shy about commenting on them. I have also had
    numerous discussions with Kevin about his work. The reason I do not
    regard Kevin's work as anti-Semitic is because he is developing a
    general theory of human social groups, of which Judaism is an
    example. The theory includes two major themes that are well worth
    defending. The first is the theme of groups as corporate units that
    care about their own welfare much more than the welfare of
    outsiders. This theme has a long history in all branches of the
    social sciences. From psychology we know how easily individuals make
    Us vs. Them distinctions. From anthropology we know how many
    traditional societies draw a moral circle around themselves and
    regard outsiders as literally nonhuman. Evolutionary views on groups
    as corporate units are complicated. Group selection, the process
    that would explain the evolution of adaptive groups at face value,
    was largely rejected in the 1960's. I think that the rejection was
    unwarranted and that group selection has been a strong force in
    human evolution (see E. Sober and D.S. Wilson, Unto Others: The
    Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Harvard University
    Press 1998). However, even evolutionary biologists who remain
    skeptical about group selection, such as Richard Alexander, John
    Hartung, and John Tooby, manage to think about groups as corporate
    units in more individualistic terms. Thus, there is much more
    agreement about the concept of selfish human groups than about group
    selection.

    The second theme concerns the adaptive value of human belief
    systems. A naïve brand of evolutionary epistemology claims that it
    is always adaptive to perceive the world the way the world really
    is. If so, then evolution would become a simple substitute for God
    as the agent that endows our species with the ability to know.
    Unfortunately, there are countless ways that even outrageously false
    beliefs can produce behaviors that are adaptive in the real world,
    which is the only criterion of success as far as evolution is
    concerned. Thus, a sophisticated evolutionary epistemology must deal
    with the problem of adaptive fictions, which makes knowing an
    unnatural act or natural only in certain contexts.

    I interpret Kevin's work as using Judaism as an exceptionally
    well-documented culture for which these two themes can be examined
    (along with a number of secondary themes). In my work I use other
    groups to study the same themes, including Christian faiths such as
    Anabaptism and Calvinism (No one has yet accused me of being
    anti-Anabaptist or anti-Calvinist). Sports teams, business
    corporations, and political movements provide other fine examples of
    selfish groups and adaptive fictions.

    Shortly after I finished Kevin's first book I happened to read The
    Slave, a novel by Isaac Bashevis Singer, and I was impressed by the
    correspondence between the two books. The Slave is about a devout
    young Jewish man who, during a period as a slave, falls in love with
    and marries a gentile woman. When he is freed and returns to his
    Jewish community, the only way he can bring his wife with him is for
    her to pretend that she is deaf and dumb.

    This love story takes place against the background of a Jewish
    community that springs up on the estate of an inept Polish nobleman
    who has hired Jews to manage his affairs. In no time, the Jewish
    community is churning out goods at unbeatable prices, even Catholic
    artifacts which strictly speaking is against the law. At the same
    time, there is always the threat of violence from the resentful
    Poles. The main difference between Singer's wonderful novel and
    Kevin's scholarly book is that Singer portrays the Jewish community
    as less cooperative than does MacDonald. According to Singer, Jewish
    communities, like other communities, have their share of individuals
    who are dedicated to feathering their own nests, even at the expense
    of their group.

    I would like those who regard Kevin's work as anti-Semitic to read
    The Slave and tell me how the two books differ from each other in
    their essential messages (alternatively, they can explain to me why
    Singer is anti-Semitic). Until then, I will continue to regard Kevin
    as a valued colleague who is addressing fundamental questions about
    human groups from an evolutionary perspective. There is a great need
    to understand both the bright side and the dark side of our groupish
    nature, to expand our moral circles as widely as possible and to
    suppress the Us vs. Them mentality that is so easily triggered in
    our species.
    __________________________________________________________

    David Wilson's Second Fray Comment

    It is frustrating for me to read so much nonsense on the subject of
    group selection, especially in a dialogue on fringe science. It is
    also instructive that the graduate student who informed Judith of
    group selection's respectability asked to remain anonymous. I can
    clear the air on the subject of group selection but it will require
    a bit more than a Fray posting. I hope that the editors of Slate
    will provide me the opportunity.

    The purpose of this post is to comment on the MacDonald quote that
    ended Judith's article. She found it antisemitic but I see symmetry.
    To rephrase the passage in abstract terms: Group A is threatened by
    group B and exaggerates the threat to its own members. Group B is
    threatened by group A and exaggerates the threat to its own members.
    As long as we stick to a general theory of what I called selfish
    groups and adaptive fictions in my earlier post, we are on safe and
    very important scientific ground.

    Judith's rendering of the passage was "those scheming Jews, the
    evolutionary justification for anti-Semitism." Consider the
    following two statements:

    1) Individual A is justified in destroying individual B because
    individual B behaved selfishly toward individual A.

    2) Group A is justified in destroying group B because group B
    behaved selfishly toward group A.

    The first statement is not morally acceptable at the level of
    individual interactions and the second statement is no more
    acceptable at the level of group interactions. Furthermore, truly
    selfish individuals/groups don't require justification to prey on
    other individuals/groups, any more than a lion requires
    justification to prey on gazelles. If Nazi Germany acted as a
    selfish group, the most exemplary behavior in the world would not
    have protected the Jews. I would therefore challenge a statement of
    the form "Nazis were antisemitic because of what Jews did to them."
    If only groups were so morally principled!

    This brings us to the general concept of morality: What unites
    individuals or groups into a single moral community that rewards
    good conduct and punishes selfishness? Hint: multilevel selection
    has something to do with it.

    David Sloan Wilson
    Professor, Department of Biological Sciences
    Binghamton University
    Binghamton, New York 13902-6000
    tel: 607-777-4393 fax: 607-777-6521
    email: dwilson@binghamton.edu

[Albert]

Many years ago when Nick Griffin, now running the BNP was young. He had a run in with the law. The Barristers (Top Lawyers @ $1000 per hour debated and debated with language that even other lawyers didn't understand. One classic a Jew came out with was "Anti-Jewitism" ? they just make it up!

[Rev.Shaun]

correct me if im wrong..........(because im not), but Arabs are semitic blood as well, so when a hookie accuses me of being Anti-semitic, I state that I am not, i have nothing against their Arab brethren......and then watch the blood pound in their faces.

[Macro]

Interested parties might enjoy reading Joe Sacco's Palestine, a graphic novel about the author's stay in Egypt, Gaza, and Israel.  Frankly, it's easy to see why the Palestinians despise their overseers:  They have been robbed of their land and reduced to a status lower than that of illegal aliens in America.  Otherwise, the Jews routinely conduct dragnets and incarcerate them in outdoor camps--after being deprived of due process.