If you're looking for an introduction to the symbolic life lived close to the unconscious, it doesn't get much better or more concise than this. In a question and answer format, you'll find an easily accessible introductory guide to analytical psychology and Jungian dream analysis.

"The Way of the Dream is based on an extraordinary series of films made by Fraser Boa, who collected first-person accounts of dreams in street interviews with ordinary men and women in various parts of the world. He then asked the eminent psychoanalyst Marie-Louise von Franz to interpret these dreams on film, just as she would in a private analytical session. The resulting text is a primer explaining and demonstrating the art and science of dream analysis for the general public. The material covered includes dreams of men, dreams of women, what dreams tell us about ourselves and our relationships, the historical significance of dreams, and dreams about death and dying. Dr. von Franz concludes that one of the healthiest things people can do is pay attention to their dreams: 'Dreams show us how to find meaning in our lives, how to fulfill our own destiny, how to realize the greater potential of life within us.'"

This book was a very interesting, readable, understandable introduction to Jungian psychoanalysis. Reading like the transcript from Boa's documentary film, it introduces von Franz' comments between quotes from everyday people about their own dreams. Fascinating dialogue and question/answer format makes this easily understandable and prompts an appetite to learn more. For everyone who ever had a dream and wondered about its possible meaning, this book is a treat and can set you on a journey of self-discovery that is both fun and challenging.

This is an important book to own if you are interested in the history of anthropology. As the title of the book implies, this is a selection of his works written between 1883 and 1911.
It was in these years that Boas was most influential in shaping American anthropology. Stocking the editor, selected from Boas' letters, journal articles, lectures and
books written in this 28 year span. The result is that the reader can access Boas' writings
on:
1.) The history and development of anthropology.
2.) The problems (both theoritical and methodological) in evolutionism, folklore and physical anthropology.
3.) How ethnographic fieldwork and linguistics should be done.
4.) The idea of race/races in anthropology.
5.) The social role of anthropology in American society.
Stocking's selections allow the reader to view the development of anthropology in the United States, plus provide insights into Boas as a person. The short essays
written by Stocking before each section help place the selections in their historical context. Interestingly, several of the issues Boas
grappled with---race as just one example---are still debated and contested by anthropologists today.

Boas gives an interesting overview of primitive art from around the world, which is surprisingly similar in many different regions... his explanation of the meanings of apparently simplistic designs will be of interest to those interested in Modern (abstract) Art, which has been very influenced by such ideas.

He has a large section dealing with the art of the Natives of North West North America, which is fascinating but heavy going. I regret however Boas didn't tackle Australian Aboriginal or Maori art in detail since both of these genres have become popular in recent times. Inevitably there are areas which have been left out of the global picture and a comparison with the "Celtic" art revival and pre-classical Europe might have been in order too.

This is a puzzler. The research is staggering, the sheer accumulation of data impressive, the theory similar to what the great Solzhenitsyn has argued for years; and yet with The Culture of Critique - as with its predecessors - I suspect you really have to be a thoroughgoing sociobiologist to buy the whole package.

Other reviewers have already noted the oddity that Jewish opposition to egalitarianism, black supremacism, etc., from such commentators as Michael Levin (or, before him, Mises and Rothbard) has been neglected in Kevin MacDonald's analysis. The author's repeated assumption that Christianity can be discussed primarily, if not exclusively, as a sociobiological imperative is also less than wholly convincing (what if, dread thought, Christianity has survived because it happens to be true?). It's an unusual approach which in discussing the 19th century emphasizes Wagner's outbursts on the Jews but says nothing of Mendelssohn, surely the ne plus ultra of the age's Jewish-turned-Christian intellectual achievement (and a man very much on Wagner's own mind).

Still, if you have the slightest interest in the history of ideas, you must read this book, and indeed its predecessors. MacDonald's devastating demolition of Freudianism and, in particular, of Adornoism belongs within every literate person's mental furniture.

MacDonald's work is an indispensable rosetta stone for understanding five of the key intellectual and political movements of the 20th century: communism, Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, Critical Theory and radical immigration reform.
One cannot easily dismiss MacDonald's conclusion that the leaders of the last century's most socially destructive movements were people with a deep sense of their Jewish identity because so much of his evidence is furnished by Jewish thinkers and participants of the very movements under discussion. The quotations are deftly woven into the well-reasoned central thesis of the work, namely, that the movements, intrinsically hostile to European gentile culture, were developed and then energetically advanced by charismatic, secular Jewish authoritarian figures and their followers as an ethnic advancement strategy. Men such as Franz Boas, Sigmund Freud, T.W. Adorno and others founded universalistic sounding ideological systems based on the thinnest veneer of science for the purpose of radically transforming gentile culture. The great Jewish minds were more than willing to sacrifice objectivity, science and the search for universal knowledge in the name of identifying and removing what they believed to be the root causes of anti-Semitism.
The criticisms of Western culture advanced by Freud and the Frankfurt School emphasized that the West was dangerously neurotic because of sexual repression, extant authoritarian social structures such as the two parent family, Christianity and, more generally, anything which might provide European gentiles with a sense of ethnic consciousness and identity (e.g., nationalism in whatever form). As MacDonald notes, the very institutions and cultural practices attacked as being pathogenic and the root causes of anti-Semitism were widely practiced by the Jews themselves. By redefining strong traditional gentile practices as pathogenic, the Jews were able to give themselves a decisive advantage in the struggle to advance to the highest social positions. At the same time, they preserved Judaism as a distinct and unassimilated group in pursuit of its own advancement. From communism to the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, these predominantly Jewish movements have insisted that gentiles make radical and even suicidal social reforms in response to their interminable critiques. At the same time, Judaism has avoided practicing what it preaches. Can anyone imagine a white European professor at a prestigious private university traveling around telling other whites that they should only marry and breed with other whites? That professor would be stripped of tenure and bounced out in a gale of denunciations by his school. Yet this is precisely what Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Jewish studies at Emory, has done for years. She along with a number of Jews has argued against intermarrying with gentiles in order to keep Judaism pure. Does she mean racially pure? (MacDonald provides a juicy quote from a 19th Reform rabbi who argued that Judaism must be kept "racially" pure. The Likud Party incorporated the word "purification" into their party's position on the Arab problem.)
MacDonald analyzes one of the foundational texts of modern sociology, The Authoritarian Personality, and shows that throughout, the primarily Jewish researchers draw all sorts of conclusions from their subjects without any apparent objective norm. Whenever interviewees express a strong sense of love and admiration for their parents, the researchers conclude that they are hiding repressed feelings of anger and frustration. Conversely, children of broken homes who express ambivalent feelings about their parents are described as "healthy" and "honest". How are these conclusions drawn? The examples provided by MacDonald are informative in that they reveal a total departure from Western culture's insistence on reason and science being the guides in the advancement of knowledge. Even today when the methods and conclusions of these ideologies have been adequately debunked by those working in the social sciences, they still carry authority in the popular mind thanks to the tireless mendacity of such figures as Stephen Jay Gould. Advances in the fields of the social sciences and psychology have been set back by decades by the dogmatic shams concocted by certain Jewish ethnic activists. Even now, whites and blacks alike have cast aside high investment childrearing in a two-parent family (hotbed for gentile neuroses) to pursue lifestyles destructive of individual and communal good in response to the recommends of 20th century patriarchs.
For those who would dismiss MacDonald's thesis, it's interesting to reflect on the current ethnic makeup of the neoconservatives surrounding Bush and who run such influential opinion journals as The Weekly Standard. In launching the recent war of aggression against Iraq, the Bush administration and its coterie of (heavily Jewish) scribblers at National Review and The Weekly Standard defended the indefensible by couching their reasons in universalistic moralisms. Consistent with the pattern of Jewish behavior described by MacDonald, they keep close ties to their own kind, influencing the intellectual and political vision of extreme right wing Likudniks back in Israel (think of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et. al.). Likewise, they've systematically redefined America and her relationship to the world (shades of the anti-restrictionists discussed in Chp. 7 all over again) in order to present our republic as an international long gun defender of democracy. This anti-historical interpretation conveniently serves the interests of Israel while leaving Americans to shoulder the long term and short term consequences. In the vein of David Frum and Jonah Goldberg, they've slurred and denounced critics of neoconservative policy as anti-Semites regardless of whether it is warranted or not. From the far left to the far right, everyone who has questioned the motives of the recent war has been tried, condemned and sentenced to the loony fringe. Likewise, they have adopted white boys like Wm. Bennett and Fred Barnes to serve as shabbas goyim in their campaign to turn America into a militaristic empire. These behavior patterns are entirely consistent with those covered by MacDonald in his examination of the Big Five Kosher Ideologies in C of C.
The times have changed, but the players who are working against the interests and well-being of European-Americans have only grown more powerful. People should recognize that the duel for the soul of the West is an ethnic competition between two groups with very different histories, cultures, and desires.

John French, in his review above, falls into a simple statistical error when he concludes that higher IQ explains the complete control of the means of communication by Jews. He misses the fact that because Northern European Whites outnumber Jews in America by 30 to 1 they also produce every year far more super-geniuses, geniuses, and near-geniuses. So, even if proportionally Jews may produce more high IQ individuals per 1000 than Whites, they produce far fewer in absolute numbers. Another source of statistical error for Mr. French is his baseline use of 15 IQ points as the difference between average European White IQ and Jewish IQ. 9 points of IQ is more commonly quoted. In sum, the only sufficient mechanism explaining the total hegemony over communications channels that the tiny Jewish population has constructed during its short sojourn in the midst of White populations is organization. Tribal organization. Precisely the patterns of group solidarity that Professor MacDonald so meticulously documents in his supremely important piece of scholarship and insight. Very high IQ insight. And very suppressed. The media blackout, censorship, and ridicule that the genius Professor MacDonald's book gets actually makes the same point that his book makes!