I’ll start doing so immediately. Thank you for clearing this up for me.

I mistyped. Meant to say I can’t agree.

Since racially based slavery is in full effect today, I can’t disagree with your premise.
My assertion that you don’t understand the science of what you’re dismissing might be because you don’t account for racial IQ, and what that means when trying to establish a democracy. You also go on about Hitler very subjectively, while I don’t.
There was nothing particularly special about Hitler. He was what I’d call a classic warrior, and simply did what other warriors from long ago, some famous, did as a matter of course.
What really is immature in your concern is the fact that you are flummoxed that students aren’t attacking the professor with your brand of dogma.
To me, it’s not a matter of if it’s right or wrong to discuss alleged Jewish clan behavior, or how it might have affected a response from Germans before WWII. The only proper response to his assertions is, “is he right?”
Not “it’s terrible to consider such things,” because… that’s irrational, and stupid.
I think it’s a good sign that students aren’t responding as you would have liked. To me, it may indicate that they aren’t hypervigilant about towing the liberal line, and an original, unemotional, unbiased thought might have some room to sneak in their young heads.
That’s right. Not screaming at anyone who might posit the notion that the jews were anything but hapless victims in the world in all important aspects of their history is a sign of emotional mental health.
If you don’t think the Jews can be clannish, that they can’t impose their agenda in any meaningful way in other countries, fine.
Make your case, the professor can make his, and people can decide.
Simply being amazed that students don’t particularly share your emotional view on a matter isn’t helping you to think any more clearly. It’s keeping you right were you are, basting in your limited methods of discovery.

I'll start doing so immediately. Thank you for clearing this up for me.

I mistyped. Meant to say I can't agree.

Since racially based slavery is in full effect today, I can't disagree with your premise.
My assertion that you don't understand the science of what you're dismissing might be because you don't account for racial IQ, and what that means when trying to establish a democracy. You also go on about Hitler very subjectively, while I don't.
There was nothing particularly special about Hitler. He was what I'd call a classic warrior, and simply did what other warriors from long ago, some famous, did as a matter of course.
What really is immature in your concern is the fact that you are flummoxed that students aren't attacking the professor with your brand of dogma.
To me, it's not a matter of if it's right or wrong to discuss alleged Jewish clan behavior, or how it might have affected a response from Germans before WWII. The only proper response to his assertions is, “is he right?”
Not “it's terrible to consider such things,” because… that's irrational, and stupid.
I think it's a good sign that students aren't responding as you would have liked. To me, it may indicate that they aren't hypervigilant about towing the liberal line, and an original, unemotional, unbiased thought might have some room to sneak in their young heads.
That's right. Not screaming at anyone who might posit the notion that the jews were anything but hapless victims in the world in all important aspects of their history is a sign of emotional mental health.
If you don't think the Jews can be clannish, that they can't impose their agenda in any meaningful way in other countries, fine.
Make your case, the professor can make his, and people can decide.
Simply being amazed that students don't particularly share your emotional view on a matter isn't helping you to think any more clearly. It's keeping you right were you are, basting in your limited methods of discovery.

“By the way, you seem to be fixated on the idea that violence means failure, and that if western europeans resort to violence, then they are qualitively on social parity with a group of head hunters in the Congo.”

I don’t see that in anything I wrote. I certainly don’t think that. I meant–and still think I said this clearly–that European civilization is influential and powerful precisely because it managed to transcend and include differences (of race, ethnicity, and–starting in the Renaissance–even gender, and then religion) so that Europeans could get on with the business of making a difference in the material world. That shift in consciousness–from peasants into Frenchman, one scholar called it in the case of France–is huge, and may account for the material progress of Europe. In that regard, I see violence as stupid, sure: the more violent a community, the less time it has for the creation of wealth. And wealth is better than poverty.

ON that latter point (the non-response): I’m with you, and I wish I’d made that clearer: I say that students don’t regard MacDonald seriously. That seems very thoughtful indeed.

You ever read Ken Wilber, the philosopher? You might enjoy him.