No I don't belive that Ols MacDonald's work is scientific in any meaningful sense of the term. Can any thing he proposes as fact be falsified?

If the following is an example of his his thinking then his work won't even give him fifteen minutes of fame:

"Of the 15 million-or-so Jews in the world, only a very small percentage work for Jewish organizations. MacDonald argues that this small group of organizational Jews attempts to inculcate communal goals among the rest of the Jewish population."

I suspect that most Jews don't even know the names of a small number of these "elders of the tribe" and fewer even know whart they say.

I does he square the view of Jewish organizations inculcating communal with the reality that many of these organization can't even agree among themselves on who is to be considered a Jew in the first place?

No, MacDonald's work is trash, and Joey Kurtzman is trying to show everyone what an independent and non-tribal Jew he is by endorsing it.

It's all a bit too. too childish!

But what seems to me undeniable is that MacDonald has presented us with a fascinating and genuinely novel examination of the history and internal workings of the Jewish world. His trilogy is a hell of a read. To any Jewcy readers tired of pious, “hooray-for-us!” Jewish historiography, or just interested in seeing traditional Jewish history through a kaleidoscope, I happily recommend it.

Yes, this "endorsement" is really most peculiar. I don't think Kurtzman has demonstrated he's got enough intellectual credentials to understand and criticize MacDonald. As far as evolutionary theory goes, he doesn't know what he's talking about, viz., " Whether his theory of “group evolutionary strategies” turns out to make sense in light of future research, and whether improved understanding of Jewish population genetics will support or rubbish the theory that Jews have hardwired behavioral predispositions, we’ll just have to wait and see. " Uh, no we don't have to wait and see. Only someone with NO knowledge of either evolutionary theory or anthropology could even make such a statement. Jews have "hardwired behavioral predispositions"? And just what Jews would that be? Tell me, Mr. Kurtzman, are you talking about Ashkenazi Jews (and if so, which ones?) Sephardim? Jews from India? Are we all hardwired in the same way? Are Jews a race? Do you know what a race is? Of course not - or you couldn't have written this rubbish. No, I think the last writer above me is correct, you're just trying to show how open-minded you are. So open-minded that your brains apparently have fallen out.

MacDonald doesn't understand evolution, and you are just compounding the problem. Good grief, as if there isn't enough racist stupidity without a fellow Jew being willing to listen to it.

Wendy Orent

since the hipster jew and oakeshott-lite can't figure out if they actually agree with macdonald or not, maybe a nazi can help.

carl schmitt believed the only relevant group distinction to be made was on the basis of the political, and which took the form friend/enemy. "enemy" meant existential threat, someone possibly worth killing. it was not simply code for "liberal" or "jew," since the nature of liberalism for schmitt consisted precisely in its NOT being a political standpoint but a generalized system of economic, cultural, and moral nullification of existing political standpoints and the group distinctions based on them.

as far as kurtzman goes, i don't know what the fuck he's talking about. 'culture of critique' is shit, pamphlet-level hackwork. gentile culture must indeed be immanently pathological if macdonald doesn't think german antisemitism culminating in the holocaust gives adorno ample reason to critique it. as for "group strategy," if jews acted historically to mitigate their risk, how is this ever anything but political? as for socialism, what notion of abstract equality ever stemmed from anything other than risk-minimization?

CofC is filled with all sort of nested bullshit, since (let's get real here) the true subject of the book is tactical antisemitism -- and since the most valuable and valid theories of antisemitism are the work of jews, they are therefore inadmissible (to listen to the jew is to be mesmerized). in adorno, antisemitism is no mere theory of jew-hatred, but a theory of civilized violence, which also includes jews as predators, philistines, the ones who know better (think david geffen or bruce wasserstein)...

as for derbyshire, i was never clear on his political motivations. in the animal-crackers world of a natural-rights conservative, it's easy to figure out where the blacks stand -- but when both liberalism and the mainline straussian opposition are both jewish games, where does HE stand?

jkatz

While Macdonald's books are an imperative for anyone concerned with the survival of the West, the real importance of his work is actually for the Jewish people themselves. What Macdonald has created is essentially a self help book for the Jewish people. What the Jewish people have here, is an opportunity to understand themselves, without the usual Jewish ethnocentrism. Macdonald's work may be the difference between history repeating itself or true progression for a very talented but troubled people. While I realize that it can be extremely painful looking at our own faults sometimes, I think we can all agree that it may be time to do so.

The proof of the pudding with respect to Professor MacDonald is his testimony on behalf of Mr. Irving. The fellow flew all the way to London, England, across the Atlantic Sea, to speak his peace. Why not see it in writing and debate it here?

Prof. MacDonald's written deposition,  http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/irving-statementCourt.html

begins:

1. Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 90840-0901 USA

2. I have a Ph. D. in Biobehavioral Sciences from the University of Connecticut. I have published six books (including two edited books) and over 30 academic papers in the area of evolutionary approaches to human behavior, particularly in the field of evolutionary psychology and the application of evolutionary psychology to understanding ethnic conflict in history (e.g., Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis. New York: Plenum, 1988). I am editor of the journal Population and Environment, published by Human Sciences Press, a division of Kluwer Academic Publishers. This journal deals with issues related to the interface between environmental issues and human population, including issues of ethnic conflict. I am also Secretary/Archivist and member of the Executive Board of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, the main academic organization dealing with the application of evolutionary biology to the study of human affairs.

___________

Evolution and evolutionary, used repeatedly, imply Professor MacDonald's theories are genetically oriented; characteristics claimed to be Jewish are no more subject to basic change than are hair color, eye color, or blood type. Similarly, African Americans are sometimes said to be lazy, prone to criminality, or stupid by virtue of genetics; most find such theories reprehenisible. For some reason, similar statements applied to Jews are said to evince courage. Thirty publications is really puny when the person is a mature academic scientist; most likely a lack of talent induced Professor MacDonald to write non-peer reviewed books as a means of protecting his ego.

 .   

The Occidental Quarterly figures prominently in Professor MacDonald's c.v. The most current table of contents (Summer 2007) induced the words yak smegma to come to mind:

Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EDITOR'S NOTE: Race Denial
ARTICLES:
"Ethnocentrism, Ethnopreference, Xenophobia: Peace in Race Relations—A New Understanding" by Robert John

"The Book of Genesis from a Darwinian Perspective" by Richard Faussette

REVIEW ESSAYS:

Sample (pdf): "Race and Science" (on John P. Jackson, Jr.'s Social Scientists for Social Justice: Making the Case Against Segregation and Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case against Brown v. Board of Education) by Raymond Wolters

Sample (pdf): "Rotating Polyandry—and its Enforcers" (on Michelle Langley's Women's Infidelity: Living in Limbo and Stephen Baskerville's Taken into Custody: The War against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family) by F. Roger Devlin

BOOK REVIEWS:
Sample (pdf): Jonathan Peter Spiro's Patrician Racist: The Evolution of Madison Grant  reviewed by Nelson Rosit

Ronald J. Olive's Capturing Jonathan Pollard: How One of the Most Notorious Spies in American History Was Brought to Justice reviewed by Stephen J. Sniegoski

Sample (pdf): John Glad's Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century and Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen's IQ and Global Inequality reviewed by Matt Nuenke 

Here is paragraph 3:

3. Since 1991 I have been involved in extending the evolutionary paradigm to the study of Judaism. This project has resulted in three books: A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994; 302 pp.) delineates key aspects of Judaism within an evolutionary theory of groups. The basic proposal is that Judaism can be interpreted as a set of ideological structures and behaviors that have resulted in the following features: (1) the segregation of the Jewish gene pool from surrounding gentile societies; (2) resource and reproductive competition with gentile host societies; (3) high levels of within-group cooperation and altruism among Jews; and (4) eugenic efforts directed at producing high intelligence, high investment parenting, and commitment to group, rather than individual, goals.

Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998; 325 pp.) develops an evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism. The basic thesis is that Judaism must be conceptualized as a group strategy characterized by cultural and genetic segregation from gentile societies combined with resource competition and conflicts of interest with segments of gentile societies. This cultural and genetic separatism combined with resource competition and other conflicts of interest tend to result in division and hatred within the society. A major theme of this volume is that intellectual defenses of Judaism and of Jewish theories of anti-Semitism have throughout its history played a critical role in maintaining Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. The book discusses tactics Jewish groups have used over the centuries to combat anti-Semitism. Particularly important are discussions of Jewish self-interest, deception, and self-deception in the areas of Jewish historiography, Jewish personal identity, and Jewish conceptualizations of their ingroup and its relations with outgroups.

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998; 376 pp.) Ethnic conflict is a recurrent theme throughout the first two volumes, and that theme again takes center stage in this work. However, whereas in the previous works ethnic conflict consisted mainly of recounting the oftentimes bloody dynamics of Jewish-gentile conflict over the broad expanse of historical time, the focus here shifts to a single century and to several very influential intellectual and political movements that have been spearheaded by people who strongly identified as Jews and who viewed their involvement in these movements as serving Jewish interests. Individual chapters discuss the Boasian school of anthropology, psychoanalysis, leftist political ideology and behavior, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, and the New York Intellectuals. An important thesis is that all of these movements may be seen as attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would end anti-Semitism and provide for Jewish group continuity either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner.

++++++++++++++

Evolutionary appears multiple times; this theory is not about things Jews can change, but about horrible things Jews inherit. Jews, horribly persecuted for being Christ killers, are given, in the first book to genetic separatism, forgetting 1) the ghettos were not self-imposed, 2) crypto-Jews, included as Jews by MacDonald, lived as non-Jews as integrated as possible in Spanish and Portuguese society, 3) Jewish blood problems were genetically dominant in the Inquisition, meaning that Professor MacDonald's thesis would have to account for a lack of loyalty to the majority of one's ancestors in persons who were one-quarter Jew. The second book argues for Jews being in competition with the surrounding society, forgetting that the Kings of England, Spain, and Morrocco tended to use the Jews to better their finances, making quite a bundle in the process; most obnoxious is the notion that defenses against murderous persecution are dishonest, implying that honesty would lead to the murder of all Jews.   The third book portrays a variety of movements, a person named Boas, "leftist political ideology" (an amorphous term), the Frankfort School, and "New York intellectuals" (again incredibly amorphous) as pernicious; the summary provides the soil for deceptive scholarship because the use of amorphous terms for movements permits outrageous generalizations to garner patinas of intellection.   Of greatest importance: these general theories about Jews are deemed relevant to the disposition of a slander charge by Mr. Irving against a particular Jew named Professor Lipstadt. When a psychologist testifies in a trial, almost always there is evidence provided about persons who are parties to the dispute. A defamation trial is about the defendant and the complainant; it is about neither ancestors, nor neighbors, nor persons with whom the defendant and the complainant are unacquainted.

The next paragraph is vital, especially its first sentence, made bold:

+++++++++++

The main point of my testimony is that the attacks made on David Irving by Deborah Lipstadt and Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League should be viewed in the long-term context of Jewish-gentile interactions. As indicated by the summaries of my books, my training as an evolutionist as well as the evidence compiled by historians leads me to conceptualize Judaism as self-interested groups whose interests often conflict with segments of the gentile community. Anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior have been a pervasive feature of the Jewish experience since the beginnings of the Diaspora well over 2000 years ago. While anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior have undoubtedly often been colored by myths and fantasies about Jews, there is a great deal of anti-Jewish writing that reflects the reality of between-group competition exactly as expected by an evolutionist. Particularly important have been the themes of separatism'the [sic] fact that Jewish groups have typically existed as recognizably distinct groups and have been unwilling to assimilate either culturally or via marriage to the wider society, the theme of economic, political, and cultural domination, and the theme of disloyalty

+++++++++++

The main point would appear to be that Jews should be denied the right to be judged by their actions and not those of others. Not even Mr. John Gotti had to fear that his guilt or innocence would be determined by the acts of Mafioso bygone decades. This attempt to impose a government stricture upon a Jew for being a Jew is viciously anti-semitic.

The final sentence is absurd. Black people have been recognizably distinct and are likely to be so until all are blind. Attempts of Jews to assimilate into German society did not prevent the Holocaust, notwithstanding statements by the assimilated that Mr. Hitler only intended the more religious Jews to be designated as being foreign. Like Mr. Hitler, Professor MacDonald identifies what he perceives to be genetic characteristics. Stability of antipathy over millenniums makes the Jewish genome remarkably resistant to an evolutionary pressure that is asserted to exist; evolutionary psychology would appear to have no place in the explanation of a group’s constant psychological characteristics.

The purpose of a trial is to resolve a dispute, in this case between Mr. Irving and Prof. Lipstadt. Let's see how many of the Professor's paragraphs actually reference Professor Lipstadt. Here are the next two paragraphs:

Because anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior have been such a common response to Jews as a Diaspora group, Jewish groups have developed a wide variety of strategies to cope with their enemies. Separation and Its Discontents discusses a great many of these strategies, including a very long history of apologia dating to the ancient world. In the last century there have been a great many intellectual activities, most notably many examples of Jewish historiography which present Jews and Judaism in a positive light and their enemies in a negative light, often with little regard for historical accuracy. Most importantly for the situation of David Irving, Jewish groups have engaged in a wide range of political activities to further their interests. In general, Jews have been active agents rather than passive martyrs; they have been highly flexible strategizers in the political arena. The effectiveness of Jewish strategizing has been facilitated by several key features of Judaism as group evolutionary strategy'particularly that the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is at least one standard deviation above the Caucasian mean. In all historical eras, Jews as a group have been highly organized, highly intelligent, and politically astute, and they have been able to command a high level of financial, political, and intellectual resources in pursuing their group goals.

For example, Jews engaged in a very wide range of activities to combat anti-Semitism in Germany in the period from 1870 to 1914, including the formation of self-defense committees, lobbying the government, utilizing and influencing the legal system (e.g., taking advantage of libel and slander laws to force anti-Jewish organizations into bankruptcy), writing apologias and tracts for distribution to the masses of gentile Germans, and funding organizations opposed to anti-Semitism composed mainly of sympathetic gentiles. Jewish organizations commissioned writings in opposition to "scientific anti-Semitism," as exemplified by academically respectable publications that portrayed Judaism in negative terms. Academic works were monitored for such material, and Jewish organizations sometimes succeeded in banning offending books and getting publishers to alter offensive passages. The result was to render such ideas academically and intellectually disreputable.

 ++++++++++++++++

To Professor MacDonald, the crude anti-semitism of the Second Reich, basically repeated by Mr. Hitler, was made academically and intellectually disreputable because of Jewish efforts to discredit them. That the ideas were repulsive to begin with because they justified the extirpation of human life has no relevance to Professor MacDonald. Although this paragraph is not of necessity a set of antisemitic statements, it bespeaks a heart of iron, a person lacking in basic morals and decency.     

What matters is that acts of German Jews more than three quarters of a century before the publication of Professor Lipstadt's allegedly defamatory writings are deemed relevant to the question of Professor Lipstadt's having libelled Mr. Irving.

Professor MacDonald then treats the Court to displays of current victims of Jews. Here is the first:

A theme of anti-Jewish writing in the contemporary U. S. has been that Jewish organizations have used their power to make the discussion of Jewish interests off limits. Individuals who have made remarks critical of Jews have been forced to make public apologies and suffered professional difficulties as a result. Quite often the opinions in question are quite reasonable'statements that are empirically verifiable and the sort of thing that might be said about other groups or members of other groups. For example, media critic William Cash (1994), writing for the British magazine The Spectator, described the Jewish media elite as "culturally nihilist," suggesting that he believed Jewish media influence reflects Jewish lack of concern for traditional cultural values. Kevin Myers, a columnist for the British Sunday Telegraph (January 5, 1997) wrote that "we should really be able to discuss Jews and their Jewishness, their virtues or their vices, as one can any other identifiable group, without being called anti-Semitic. Frankness does not feed anti-Semitism; secrecy, however, does. The silence of sympathetic discretion can easily be misunderstood as a conspiracy. It is time to be frank about Jews." Myers goes on to note that The Spectator was accused of anti-Semitism when it published the article by William Cash (1994) referred to above. Myers emphasized the point that Cash's offense was that he had written that the cultural leaders of the United States were Jews whose Jewishness remained beyond public discussion.

Cash stated that there is a double standard in which a Jewish writer like Neal Gabler is able to refer to a "Jewish cabal" while his own use of the phrase is described as anti-Semitic. He also noted that while movies regularly portray negative stereotypes of other ethnic groups, Cash's description of Jews as "fiercely competitive" was regarded as anti-Semitic. As another example, Marlon Brando repeated statements originally made in 1979 on a nationally televised interview program to the effect that "Hollywood is run by Jews. It's owned by Jews." The focus of the complaint was that Hollywood regularly portrays negative stereotypes of other ethnic groups but not of Jews. Brando's remarks were viewed as anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL) and the Jewish Defense League (Los Angeles Times, April 9, 1996, F4).

These claims regarding Hollywood are empirically verifiable claims, but the response of major Jewish organizations has been to label the claims "anti-Semitic" and attempt to ruin the careers of the people involved. Both Cash and Brando have apologized for their remarks and, as part of their apologies, visited the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles (Forward, April 26, 1996). (Cash's apology occurred some two years after publication of his remarks.) The Forward article suggests that Cash has had trouble publishing his work in the wake of the incident. Moreover, the same issue of Forward reported that the publisher of Cash's comments, Dominic Lawson, editor of the London Spectator, was prevented from publishing an article on the birth of his Down Syndrome daughter in The New Republic when Martin Peretz, the owner, and Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor, complained about Lawson's publishing Cash's article. There is abundant evidence that Peretz strongly identifies as a Jew and for his unabashed policy of slanting his journal toward positions favorable to Israel

++++++++++++

Actions with respect to Mr. Cash, have nothing to do with actions by Professor Lipstadt with respect to Mr. Irving  by ordinary logic. The only reason they would is because of an anti-semitic belief system, whereby such irrelevancies are taken as evidence of a Jewish conspiracy against gentiles.

Matters continue with a Jewish victim of Jewish antipathy to gentiles and a peculiar victim who complains that a third party candidate was victimized by Jews:

Similarly, Noam Chomsky, the famous MIT linguist, describes his experience with the ADL:

In the United States a rather effective system of intimidation has been developed to silence critique.... Take the Anti-Defamation League.... It's actually an organization devoted to trying to defame and intimidate and silence people who criticize current Israeli policies, whatever they may be. For example, I myself, through a leak in the new England office of the Anti-Defamation League, was able to obtain a copy of my file there. It's 150 pages, just like an FBI file, [consisting of] interoffice memos warning that I'm going to show up here and there, surveillance of talks that I give, comments and alleged transcripts of talks ... [T]his material has been circulated [and] ... would be sent to some local group which would use it to extract defamatory material which would then be circulated, usually in unsigned pamphlets outside the place where I'd be speaking.... If there's any comment in the press which they regard as insufficiently subservient to the party line, there'll be a flood of letters, delegations, protests, threats to withdraw advertising, etc. The politicians of course are directly subjected to this, and they are also subjected to substantial financial penalties if they don't go along.... This totally one-sided pressure and this, by now, very effective system of vilification, lying, defamation, and judicious use of funds in the political system ... has created a highly biased approach to the whole matter. (Chomsky 1988, 642-3)

Consider also the comments of columnist Joseph Sobran, who was forced out of his position as columnist at National Review for remarks critical of Israel:

The full story of [Pat Buchanan's 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it's taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it's highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don't respect their victimhood, they'll destroy you. It's a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996, 3).

++++++++++++++

Again, these persons are not part of the dispute between Ms. Lipstadt and to Mr. Irving. 

This is to remove a duplicate post.

As yet, there has not even been a mention of Ms. Lipstadt. The final three paragraphs do this:

It is my view that the campaign to suppress the publication of David Irving's biography of Goebbels (Washington Post, April 4, 1996) is another example of these tactics. After an article by editorial columnist Frank Rich condemning the book appeared in the New York Times (April 3, 1996), the ADL successfully pressured St. Martin's Press to rescind publication despite the fact that this book, relying on previously unknown diaries of its subject, is a major scholarly achievement'an indispensable work for those writing on the history of the Third Reich. Deborah Lipstadt's work contributes to this atmosphere of suppression'particularly her statement that Irving is not a historian. [The following has been added since this statement was submitted to the court: I call your attention to Lipstadt's comments in The Washington Post of April 3, 1996 in which she is quoted as stating that "In the Passover Hagadah, it says in every generation there are those who rise up to destroy us. David Irving is not physically destroying us, but is trying to destroy the memory of those who have already perished at the hands of tyrants." "They say they don't publish reputations, they publish books.... But would they publish a book by Jeffrey Dahmer on man-boy relationships? Of course the reputation of the author counts. And no legitimate historian takes David Irving's work seriously." These comments, were made in reaction to the St. Martin's Press rescinding publication of Irving's book, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich and were clearly intended to support that decision.] Quite simply, it is widely acknowledged among professional historians such as Gordon Craig, A.J.P. Taylor, and Hugh Trevor-Roper that David Irving is a brilliant researcher and a compelling writer. His work is required reading for serious students of the Third Reich and World War II.

 I suppose that the motivation for this campaign of suppression is because of Irving's involvement in disputes about the nature and extent of the Holocaust'that in the absence of such activity, Irving's biography of Goebbels would have been published without incident. However, I submit that Irving's other activities should not result in the suppression of Irving's historical research and the general denigration of his work that is apparent in Lipstadt's work.. To be sure, Irving, like many historians, may indeed see events through a filter of personal political and intellectual convictions. This is a commonly acknowledged difficulty that afflicts all of the social sciences, and Jewish social scientists have certainly not been immune from these tendencies. In my book Separation and Its Discontents, I devote much of a chapter to many examples of the historiography of Jewish history written by Jews'surely not exhaustive'in which there are clear apologetic tendencies'tendencies to view the Jewish ingroup in a favorable manner and to pathologize anti-Semitism as irrational and completely unrelated to the actual behavior of Jews. These works have been published by the most prestigious academic and commercial presses. Other commentators have noticed similar apologetic tendencies in Jewish historiography, including, most notably Albert Lindemann in his recent book Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Revealingly, Lindemann's examples of biased historical research include the work of Jewish Holocaust historians Lucy Dawidowicz and Daniel J. Goldhagen'a clear indication that the area of Holocaust studies remains politically charged. Moreover, in The Culture of Critique I describe several highly influential intellectual movements (Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Social Research) that presented themselves as science but were strongly influenced the Jewish ethnic agendas of their founders, particularly combating anti-Semitism.Intellectual blinders and political agendas are a fact of academic life. However, even were it to be proved that David Irving does indeed bring a certain set of biases to his work, even the most biased researchers may well contribute invaluable scholarship. Science emerges when the work of all investigators becomes part of the marketplace of ideas and when scholars are not vilified and their scholarship censored simply because their conclusions fly in the face of contemporary orthodoxy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Note that the stuff in brackets was not provided to the Court. The only thing the Court received about Professor Lipstadt  was a statement that her work contributed to an atmosphere of suppression and that she, as did Professor Evans of Princeton University, called Mr. Irving a non-historian. The difference between Professor Evans and Professor Lipstadt is that the latter is Jewish and therefore, by this analysis is culpable as part of a Jewish conspiracy against the gentile word.

Tomorrow will show the appearance of Judge Gray's opinion concerning this case of the Jews against the gentiles. It should already be clear that Professor MacDonald is not merely the author of an anti-semitic set of words. Professor MacDonald is a practicing anti-semite of the worst sort. He was acting in such a fashion as to attempt to persuade the government of Great Britain to punish an American Jew for being Jewish.  

Several parts of Justice Mr. Gray’s judgment are relevant. The quotes are taken from the following website: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-00-00.htmlMost relevant to Professor MacDonald is the following:

3.6 It was abundantly plain from his conduct of the trial that the factor to which Irving attaches the greatest importance in connection with the issue of the damages is the conduct of the Defendants and the impact which that conduct has had on himself, both personally and professionally, as well as on his family. Irving made plain in his opening, on repeated occasions during the trial and in his written and closing submissions that he regards himself as the target of a well-funded and unscrupulous conspiracy on the part of "our traditional enemies" aimed at preventing the dissemination of his books, ensuring that he is banned from as many countries as possible and stifling his right to freedom of expression. Although Irving at one stage disputed the point, it was reasonably clear that the "traditional enemies" were the members of the Jewish community. His claim is that he is the victim of an international Jewish conspiracy determined to silence him. Irving's argument was supported, in general terms, by Professor Macdonald (whom I shall describe later) but the assistance which I derived from his evidence was limited.

3.7 The Defendants are critical of the latitude which I allowed Irving in developing this theme. They contend, correctly, that in the ordinary run of litigation, the rules of evidence would have prevented him advancing any such case. However, for a number of reasons, I thought it right not to take too strict a line. Irving has represented himself throughout (demonstrating, if I may so, very considerable ability and showing commendable restraint). This has not been a trial where it has been possible or appropriate to observe strict rules of evidence. Furthermore Irving has been greatly hampered in presenting this aspect of his case by the unexpected decision of the Defendants, in full knowledge of the allegations which Irving was making about the conduct of Lipstadt, not to call her to give evidence and to be cross-examined by Irving. It goes without saying that the Defendants were perfectly entitled to adopt this tactic but it did place Irving, acting in person, at a disadvantage.3.8 I explained to Irving that, in order to be able to obtain increased damages on this account, it would be necessary for him to prove on the balance of probability that both the Defendants were implicated in the alleged conspiracy. Irving did not hesitate to accuse Lipstadt of having been a prime mover. He claimed that her book was part of a sinister international campaign to discredit him. He alleged that she was acting in league with the Anti Defamation League, the Board of Deputies of Jews and other organisations intent on targeting him. He called Professor Kevin Macdonald, a professor of psychology, to testify as to the machinations of the "traditional enemies of free speech" (ie the Jews). Irving alleged that the passages to which he takes objection in Denying the Holocaust were inserted by Lipstadt at a late stage for the purpose of discrediting him. He complained that she made no attempt whatever to verify the allegations by contacting him or otherwise. He testified that it became apparent to him some three years after Denying the Holocaust was published that a concerted attempt was being made to persuade bookshops to cease stocking his work. According to Irving, Lipstadt was instrumental in procuring the decision of his American publishers not to go ahead with the publication of his most recent work, the biography of Goebbels, to which he had devoted no less than nine years work. He claimed, by implication at least, that she was also complicit in bringing pressure to bear on Irving's UK publishers to repudiate their contract to publish his Goebbels biography (at considerable cost to Irving). He claims that Lipstadt has been deeply involved in the campaign of intimidation against him and that she has actively sought to destroy him as an historian.

3.9 In assessing these claims by Irving, whose suspicions and indignation are obviously genuine, I must act on evidence and not assertion. On the evidence of the contents of the book itself, I accept that it does indeed represent a deliberate attack on Irving, mounted in order to discredit him as an historian and so to undermine any credence which might otherwise be given to his denials of the Holocaust. That is a factor which is to be taken into account, if the issue of damages arises. Beyond that finding, however, I do not consider that Irving's claim to have been the victim of a conspiracy in which both Defendants were implicated is established by the evidence placed before me. 

The above clearly establishes Professor MacDonald’s intent with respect to legally assaulting a Jew because she was a Jew.

13.103 The principal explanation or justification offered by Irving for his comments about Jews is that he is seeking to explain to Jews why anti-semitism exists and not himself adopting the anti-semitism. But I do not think that this was the message that Irving was seeking to convey to his audiences and it was certainly not the sense in which his remarks were understood. Irving advances a similar justification of his characterisation of the Jewish stereotype as an attempt to warn Jews not to enhance by their conduct the negative public perception of them. If this were Irving's objective, I do not believe that he would have used such offensive language. If (as Irving claims) his remark about Wiesenthal was a joke, it was an anti-semitic joke.13.104 I have more sympathy for Irving's argument that Jews are not immune from his criticism. He said that he was simply expressing legitimate criticisms of them. Irving gave as an example what he claimed was his justified criticism of the Jews for suppressing his freedom of expression. Another legitimate ground of criticism might be the manner in which Jews in certain parts of the world appear to exploit the Holocaust. I agree that Jews are as open to criticism as anyone else. But it appears to me that Irving has repeatedly crossed the divide between legitimate criticism and prejudiced vilification of the Jewish race and people. I can well understand too that, because of his perceived views, Irving and his family have from time to time been subjected to extreme pressure, for example when his flat house was besieged by rioters in 1994 (see paragraph 9.14 above). In the heat of the moment ill-considered remarks are often made. But it is in just such circumstances that racial prejudice manifests itself. In my view that is what occurred in 1994.13.105 The inference which in my judgment is clearly to be drawn from what Irving has said and written is that he is anti-semitic. 

++++++++++++++

The same applies to Prof. MacDonald. In acting to ask the Court to punish a Jew for being Jewish, he crossed the line from legitimate criticism into rank anti-semitism. In choosing to publish for a racist journal like the Occidental Review, Professor MacDonald crossed the line into anti-semitism.

.

The final part relates to honesty granted Prof. MacDonald by Mr. Derbyshire:

 13.163 Having reviewed what appear to me to be the relevant considerations, I return to the issue which I defined in paragraph 13.138 above. I find myself unable to accept Irving's contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 13.140 to 13.161 above, it appears to me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence 

To see the relevance of this statement, one merely need go to the following websites, wherein Prof. MacDonald is shown, in my opinion, to be guilty of the same kind of dishonesty

In sum, Professor MacDonald, in addition to having written a brutally anti-semitic trilogy, is shown to be a dishonest anti-semite. This ends my presentation and argument.