In medicine, the most important clue to resolving the cause of a disease is to identify the trigger. In the case of autism, the exponential increase in the epidemic began in the s is readily documented.
The thesis of the book is a difficult one indeed, not only because it is difficult to establish, but also because it challenges many fundamental assumptions about our contemporary intellectual and political existence. CofC describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century.
I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner. Several of these Jewish movements e. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues.
Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political and cultural dominance with non-Jews.
Here I attempt to answer some typical criticisms that have been leveled against CofC. See also my website: I also discuss issues raised by several books that have appeared since the publication of CofC. There have been complaints that I am viewing Judaism in a monolithic manner.
This is definitely not the case.
Rather, in each movement that I discuss, my methodology has been: Find influential movements dominated by Jews, with no implication that all or most Jews are involved in these movements and no restrictions on what the movements are.
For example, I touch on Jewish neo-conservatism which is a departure in some ways from the other movements I discuss. In general, relatively few Jews were involved in most of these movements and significant numbers of Jews may have been unaware of their existence.
Even Jewish leftist radicalism — surely the most widespread and influential Jewish subculture of the 20th century — may have been a minority movement within Jewish communities in the United States and other Western societies for most periods.
As a result, when I criticize these movements I am not necessarily criticizing most Jews. Nevertheless, these movements were influential and they were Jewishly motivated. Determine whether the Jewish participants in those movements identified as Jews AND thought of their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests.
Involvement may be unconscious or involve self-deception, but for the most part it was quite easy and straightforward to find evidence for these propositions. If I thought that self-deception was important as in the case of many Jewish radicalsI provided evidence that in fact they did identify as Jews and were deeply concerned about Jewish issues despite surface appearances to the contrary.
Try to gauge the influence of these movements on non-Jewish society. Keep in mind that the influence of an intellectual or political movement dominated by Jews is independent of the percentage of the Jewish community that is involved in the movement or supports the movement.
Try to show how non-Jews responded to these movements — for example, were they a source of anti-Semitism? Several of the movements I discuss have been very influential in the social sciences.
However, I do not argue that there are no Jews who do good social science, and in fact I provide a list of prominent Jewish social scientists who in my opinion do not meet the conditions outlined under 2 above see Ch.
If there was evidence that these social scientists identified as Jews and had a Jewish agenda in doing social science definitely not in the case of most of those listed, but possibly true in the case of Richard Herrnstein — see belowthen they would have been candidates for inclusion in the book.
If there is evidence that a prominent evolutionary biologist identifies as a Jew and views his work in sociobiology or evolutionary psychology as advancing Jewish agendas, then he or she should have been in CofC as an example of the phenomenon under study rather than as simply a scientist working in the area of evolutionary studies.
Interestingly, in the case of one of those I mention, Richard J. Herrnstein, Alan Ryan11 writes, 'Herrnstein essentially wants the world in which clever Jewish kids or their equivalent make their way out of their humble backgrounds and end up running Goldman Sachs or the Harvard physics department.
Ryan contrasts Murray's and Herrnstein's world views: Jewish identification and pursuit of Jewish interests were not important to the content of the theories or to the conduct of the intellectual movement. Yet Jews have been heavily overrepresented among the ranks of theoretical physicists.
From his teenage years he disliked the Germans and in later life criticized Jewish colleagues for converting to Christianity and acting like Prussians.
He especially disliked Prussians, who were the elite ethnic group in Germany. Reviewing his life at age 73, Einstein declared his ethnic affiliation in no uncertain terms: In other words, the issues of the ethnic identification and even ethnic activism on the part of people like Einstein are entirely separate from the issue of whether such people viewed the content of the theories themselves as furthering ethnic interests, and, in the case of Einstein, there is no evidence that he did so.
The same cannot be said for Freud, the New York Intellectuals, the Boasians, and the Frankfurt School, in which 'scientific' theories were fashioned and deployed to advance ethnic group interests. This ideological purpose becomes clear when the unscientific nature of these movements is understood. Much of the discussion in CofC documented the intellectual dishonesty, the lack of empirical rigor, the obvious political and ethnic motivation, the expulsion of dissenters, the collusion among co-ethnics to dominate intellectual discourse, and the general lack of scientific spirit that pervaded them.
In my view, the scientific weakness of these movements is evidence of their group-strategic function.
CofC was not reviewed widely.Content created by Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) Content last reviewed on February 16, Over 15, copies downloaded!
This is a quick and easy way to learn the basic philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The Popes of the last years have endorsed St Thomas Aquinas. The foreskin in sex. Structure of the foreskin.
It has been known since antiquity that the foreskin gives pleasure, and only forgotten in the US in the last century or so.. Central to Intactivist claims about foreskin function in sex is the work of Taylor et al., demonstrating that the foreskin itself is richly innervated with Meissner corpuscles, which are sensitive to light touch.
Critique of Research Results of a Study; Critique of Research Results of a Study. Words Jan 16th, 1 Page. Research Critique of Study on Newborn Temperature Regulation Words | 6 Pages; Research Critique in Midwifery Words | 14 Pages + Popular Essays.
Abstract The authors (Chiu, Anderson, & Burkhammer, ) of the article present all the essential components of the research study. There will be a decrease in temperature in the newborn if having difficulties breastfeeding . A. AGS Ethics Committee, Physician-Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Active Euthanasia.
Journal of American Geriatrics Society, May , 43(5)