Jewish Eugenics by John Glad

I came across “Jewish Eugenics” by John Glad at a used bookstore. Needless to say, I bought it and have been reading it. So far, I’m very impressed. Glad is a race-realist and takes a brutally honest approach to every issue he addresses. The book is a treasure trove of knowledge and ideas.
At the beginning of the book, Glad tells us (pg. 7):

In 1979, co-chairing a department at the University of Maryland in College Park, I was summoned by the Dean and asked in a tone that must have been familiar to victims of the Inquisition about my opinions on race.

Sadly, he writes elsewhere (pgs. 28,29):

… making Jews forerunners in the more and more global game of panmixia. Russia’s greatest poet Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837) was part African, as is the president of the United States even as I write these lines. One can with justice regret the loss of diversity, but it is senseless to resist the inevitable – illustrated by 60,000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Even without this latest infusion, genetic tests have shown that the present Jewish population would appear to have a total Negro admixture of the order of five to ten percent. The distinctions between races are inexorably being erased. As the popular phrase runs, ‘Deal with it.’

I find this fatalism rather odd coming from a eugenicist. Eugenicists are supposed to believe in taking a more proactive role in our destiny. Furthermore, Glad fails to point out that what we have here is not so much an eradication of race, but rather a march toward blackness around the world. Globalism has created a situation where the least successful societies propagate themselves by creating large quantities of spores (AKA “refugees”) to replicate themselves elsewhere. It’s “Survival of the most dysfunctional.” Eugenicists should be demanding a reversal of this trend.
On a more positive note, his explanation of the link between Lamarckism and racial equalitariasm is worth quoting. He writes (pg. 59):

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) had posited that environmental factors created heritable characteristics. Applied to the Jews, habits viewed as negative were explained as having their origins in ghetto life but were considered curable within an altered environment, with new characteristics transmitted to future generations. Thus, while not all Lamarckians were Jewish and not all anti-Lamarckians were gentiles, the divide separating these two camps clearly lay along these fault lines. When Lamarckism was decisively overturned by science, the Jewish fall-back position was to assert that biological variance in humans was trivial and that ‘nurture’ trumped ‘nature’ – hands down.
The ‘nature/nurture’ controversy (an 1874 coinage of Galton’s) had been presented to the public as a strawman intended to discredit the hereditarians. In point of fact, while there is indeed still a good deal of uncertainty as to the relative importance of the one factor relative to the other, absolute denial of any role to environment is a position that was never espoused by anyone. By contrast, the absolute nurture model was and is still popularly presented to the general public as the only correct paradigm, denouncing even moderately hereditarian views as ‘racist,’ ‘classist,’ ‘sexist,’ or ‘misogynist.’
The Soviet Union was the great bastion of Lamarckian ideology. The Jewish-American geneticist Herman J. Miller, who was doing research in the U.S.S.R., thought he could reverse this line of thought and wrote Stalin a letter suggesting the creation of a eugenic state. Muller barely escaped the U.S.S.R. with his life.

He goes on to recount the huge death toll, on both sides of the Lamarckian debate, from Stalin’s subsequent purges. When we refer to racial equalitarians as “Marxists,” we may be more right than many of us realized. Thought-control and authoritarianism are the only ways to maintain the illusion that “race is but a social construct.” Today’s corporate-controlled media in the U.S. and Western Europe are direct descendants of the Soviet Pravda.
As I read more of this book, I’ll post more about it. There’s too much material to cover in one review.