Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper

Kevin MacDonald joined me on my Youtube channel Tuesday night (Nathan Cofnas enters an hour after Kevin leaves and here is Nathan’s rebuttal to Kevin’s rebuttal) and Richard Spencer joins me at 5pm Wednesday (CA time).

Nathan Cofnas responds (Quillette): “Just read it. Pretty much what I expected. He repeats his arguments in more or less the same style, doesn’t address my arguments head on and in some key cases just ignores them. Probably I will publish an annotated version of the PDF.”

“I think his theory is like feminism. No matter what happens feminists can explain it in terms of the “patriarchy.” Women make less money than men?–Patriarchy (obviously). Women are more likely to win custody battles?–Patriarchy
(because judges stereotype them as suited for a maternal role). Women are less likely to write Wikipedia articles than men?–Patriarchy (silences women’s voices). By explaining everything, feminism ends up explaining nothing. Similarly, MacDonald’s theory is formulated so that it is consistent with basically all Jewish behavior. Jews are
supposed to act to advance Jewish interests, but it’s only Jewish interests *as each Jew understands it*. So when we find Jews opposing Jewish interests (e.g., advocating multiracial immigration to Israel) MacDonald says that it must be that they believe that this will actually advance Jewish interests in the long run. Or when we see the vast majority of reform/unaffiliated Jews (the ones who participated in Jewish intellectual movements) intermarrying, it is because this is part of a strategy to make connections to the non-Jewish community and preserve a core of ethnic Jews. By explaining everything the theory explains nothing.”

Click here for the podcast.

Stephen emails: “Luke, I just saw that KMac went on a podcast “Me ne frego” yesterday to discuss Cofnas’ paper. It’s a Swedish (I think) podcast who occasionally do shows in English of a high, somewhat intellectual quality.”

Nathan Cofnas replies to me:

I’m not convinced by Casey’s point about the President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. I had another paragraph on MacDonald’s misrepresentations of the PCIN report, but I cut it because someone suggested that it was too complicated and that it disrupted the flow of the paper:

“MacDonald (1998a:283) writes: “The Commission thus viewed changing the racial status quo of the United States as a desirable goal, and to that end made a major point of the desirability of increasing the total number of immigrants (PCIN 1953, 42).” However, there is nothing about the desirability of changing the racial status quo of the U.S. on page 42 of the PCIN’s report. In response to an email asking for clarification, MacDonald pointed out two passages on pages 107 and 108. Page 107 says that “what succeeded in maintaining a ‘racial status quo’ was not the arbitrary and unsuccessful national origins formula, but the reduction in the total amount of immigration.” But here the report is not saying anything about the desirability of changing the racial status quo. It is observing that the quota system was not “successful” in achieving the goal for which it was established, because “the distribution of actual immigration (quota and nonquota) varies considerably from that of the quotas themselves” (p. 6 of the report). Page 108 of the report says that the “rigidity [of the system] prevented the accomplishment of certain desired national objectives and required the Congress to bypass the national origins system on many occasions through special immigration legislation.”

Again, it is not saying anything about the desirability of changing the racial balance of the U.S. It is only saying that the quota system sometimes had to be bypassed to achieve what legislators saw as desirable goals, such as admitting every year “100 aliens (and members of their immediate families) who are certified as useful in executing the intelligence mission of the Central Intelligence Agency.”

You probably saw that KMac gave an interview about the paper. He doesn’t address any of my arguments. But he says he’s publishing a more detailed response tomorrow.

I agree with your response to Casey. The US was founded by Anglos, but the 1790 citizenship law (and the practice of slavery) shows that the US was traditionally thought of as a country for “white people,” not just for NW Europeans. If the Jews cited in the PCIN’s report were undermining NW European unity in order to promote white unity, it’s not obvious how this would constitute an attack on the American system as it was originally conceived. MacDonald’s complaint against Jews certainly isn’t that they promote white unity.

Why do I feel so intensely sympathetic to Kevin MacDonald? Because his academic ostracism reminds me of what happened to my father in 1980. I was 14. I saw what that did to my dad, to my family, to me, to our friends, and to our community.

The first time I read the Introduction to the Culture of Critique (COC), I was swept away. I recognized someone like my dad, but at the time I didn’t realize why I was so emotional and sympathetic. I see why now. When I read Kevin MacDonald, when I read about Kevin MacDonald, when I talk to Kevin MacDonald, I’m talking to my father circa 1980, the year our lives forever changed, and not for the good.

So that’s why I was going around telling people to read COC. I wanted them to better understand my story.

My Jewish friend R. reads Kevin MacDonald’s response to Nathan Cofnas and makes these notes:

Page 1
“My book was incendiary, and I knew that.” Shows awareness for the situation
R: Draws a sympathetic character, honestly speaks about his troubles
Page 2
“Sadly most of the writers for both TOO and TOQ have had to remain anonymous because of the reign of terror at universities (and in the private sector) against anyone who dissents from the status quo on race and ethnicity.”
R: Sad effect of limiting of speech
“Misguided intellectual movements like psychoanalysis may be successfully rebutted and eventually fall by the wayside”
R: has psychoanalysis been successfully rebutted? Source? Textbook? Maybe in the US. Aren’t there analysts out there doing good work? I don’t like this whole cloth dismissal of this wing of psychology. Maybe I am misinformed.
“However, the effects of immigration policy are of immediate and critical concern for the entire West.”…
“…immigration policy determines the future demographic composition of the nation. Ethnic groups unable to influence immigration policy in their own interests will eventually be displaced by groups able to accomplish this goal. Immigration policy is thus of fundamental interest to an evolutionist.”
R: Goes on to cite Makes a key point that immigration is used to displace indigenous groups, fair point.
“I began to see myself as having a dog in this fight. What was happening was, from an evolutionary perspective, a disaster for the White people of the West. Ethnic displacement is like reducing an extended family”
R: admits he is no longer objective. Sweet old man honesty. But may not benefit his scholarship.
“I never felt welcome thereafter. And although I was blackballed at least once at a prestigious academic journal, I did manage to continue to publish my work on personality, developmental psychology, evolutionary theory of culture, and the evolution of intelligence in reputable, even prominent academic venues. More painful were events at my university beginning in 2006–07 following a visit by Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center,”
R: Kmac is pouring his guts out here and we have to appreciate his openness and courage.
Page 3
*****“Much of Cofnas’s critique depends on the claim that I conceive of the Jewish community as monolithic”
R: My partial reading of CoC is that you did write as Jews as monolithic. I saw no differentiation other than left or right both using the same strategy of undermining gentiles. If you see Jews as different parts what is your taxonomy?
*****“However, the purpose of my book is to study movements that have been influential and to determine the Jewish role in these movements. This is entirely compatible with dissent by some Jews.”
The purpose of the book was to prove that Jews use ideas to undermine gentile society. The name of the book is called “culture of critique”. Culture connotates a universal way of being. It would have been more appropriate to call the book Jewish influence on left ideas, if that was your only claim.
You go farther than just claim Jewish influence, this is a part of a larger group strategy.
******”As a result, although the theory is falsifiable (e.g., by showing that these movements were not in any interesting sense Jewish or that they didn’t really have any power or influence), it cannot be falsified by providing individual counterexamples.”
To go overly autistic, you don’t define what you mean by -Jewish Influence- is one Jew enough? What about half Jewish? More problematic, most of the “Jews” involved were assimilated or atheistic. Would sematic be a better definition?
But being reasonable to his lack of definition – his hypothesis can be falsifiable. IE does movement X have a few Jews in it. However, larger claims become more messy and complicated if the leaders of both side of an issue are, in fact Jewish. Or worse, the left leaning Jew is an atheist and the right-wing Jew, is a believer. An other important point – for arguments sake lets assume you are correct and these are jewish influenced movements is it reasonable to look for other psychological factors other than in-group vs out-group dynamics. For example, Luke Ford’s conversion to Judaism may be significantly influenced by a wish to reject his community which he saw as inadequate in helping him with his sickness, or a wish to strike against his father, or a lack of nurturing due to the early loss of his mother. (sorry Luke) Did CoC examine other important psychological aspects in the Jews under study? Is it a possibility that other variables have explanatory values either enhancing or confounding their choices to push gentile undermining behaviors?
I did not read all of CoC so I may be incorrect in saying this: does CoC address intra-group conflict between Jews? Certainly, there are differences in interests between capitalist class elite Jews, the intellectuals, the radicals and professionals, small business owners and workers? Did you cover the differences in, money donations, moral and material support to causes? Are they compared with gentile divisions? What about geography? I find it hard to believe that such a diverse selection of professions, industries, wealth, education, observance have such narrow interests and lack of infighting.
Are different movements supported by different groups of Jews? For example, have you found a taxonomy for the Jews that support neo-conservatism vs. altright vs left?
Page 2
*****”Cofnas in several places characterizes my view as stating that the fact that some non-Jews have participated in Jewish movements implies Jewish manipulation, Machiavellianism, or that they have been blindly indoctrinated (e.g., Margaret Mead as a “puppet” of Franz Boas). These are misrepresentations. My view is that non-Jews who participate in Jewish movements may have a variety of motivations, ranging from sincere belief (perhaps motivated by their own, independently derived hostility to the cultural norms being attacked by the movement) to naked self-interest (non-Jews who see career opportunities by participating) …. But even when participating in such a movement has material rewards, there is no implication that the non-Jews involved don’t sincerely hold their beliefs.
R:I remember reading this passage in the book. I thought it was garbage then too. I found the text insinuating that mead and others were under a spell, and were just pawns of Boas. If I remember correctly, CoC makes no allowance to any positive motive for either Mead or Boas. There was not an ounce of truth seeking or wish to benefit humanity. Just a raw “let society burn” attitude. I felt his lack of nuance in the motivations of the subjects of this case was ridiculous. You don’t go through all this work to become a professor send your students to Papua New Guinea just on ideology to destroy the gentiles. Or there was not enough evidence cited to even approach this conclusion.

*****“In general, Jewish support for any particular idea or cause will be sensitive to each generation’s perceived interests given changing circumstances. Cofnas has a static, ahistorical conception of Jewish interests, assuming, e.g., that supporting Zionism is essential to Jewish group interests and selfidentity since the origins of political Zionism or perhaps since the origins of the Diaspora (the traditional Jewish phrase: “Next year in Jerusalem”). On the contrary, as discussed in several places here, Jewish support for causes like Zionism, radical leftism, or particular governments have a history—a beginning, a middle, and often an end. If it’s one thing that has characterized Jews throughout their history, it’s that they have been what evolutionary biologist Richard Alexander termed “flexible strategizers.” 5 There is no reason to suppose that will not continue in the future.

R: Very weak. On the surface, Kmac makes a contextual argument – what is in the best interest in the Jews at the movement – is what the Jews will support.
First, this makes the argument that Jews only support what is in their interest – thus are amoral. There is no evidence to support the theory that Jews are amoral, in fact being left – as we will show bellow can be very counter the interests of Jews (high taxes for social welfare, anti – war and affirmative action). It might be argued that Jews are more moral than gentiles, using this argument. He may then argue that having the morality of left is what is in their self-interest (altruistic for selfish reasons) however, this becomes a tautology as all actions can be explained in the same way and thus it is not an informative theory.
Second, if taken literally Kmac presents a taxonomy of Jewish group differences – ie generations, and a device for how these policies change. Meaning each generation will a have difference in what benefits them and there will be conflict at least between generations on what interests are prioritized and how scarce resources are distributed.
Third, Kmac’s refutes the idea that Jews have immutable goals and principles which runs counter to the idea of a stable religion itself and belief systems. This argument means that Jews are capable of any argument or any action. Let us not be naive, there are demagogues in every culture, which can distort and turn them to slaughter. However, there must be some principles and goals that Jews wont sacrifice, that are in fact immutable, otherwise there is no meaningful definition to the religion. To me
Fourth, in order to believe that Jews opposed Israel, and would abandon Israel as the context demands, – may show a self or local community interest – not just what is overall best for Jewry. Which runs counter to Kmac’s theory. However, the opposition to Israel today is most likely to due to the morality of the existence of a Jewish state which forcibly took land from indigenous Palestinians, which is against Jewish universalistic morality, and runs counter to Kmac’s insinuation of Jewish amorality and group cohesion.
Page 5
“ Cofnas claims that if he is successful in refuting CofC, he would have in effect refuted the first two books as well (here and here).”
R: I have not read these books, so I cannot comment.
“Cofnas proposes a “default hypothesis” of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century liberal movements, namely: Because of Jewish intelligence and geography—particularly intelligence—Jews are likely to be overrepresented in any intellectual movement or activity that is not overtly antiSemitic.” I accept the idea of high average Ashkenazi IQ, especially verbal IQ, although I defer to Richard Lynn’s research on the mean; my critique of Cochran and Harpending is here. I therefore expect Jews to be overrepresented in intellectual movements, and we could leave it at that.”
R: Kamc admits that his work can be viewed as an expansion of Cofnas’.

*****“I agree that in general and for obvious reasons, Jews won’t be attracted to theories that cast Jews in a bad light; indeed, a major point regarding Jewish motivation for the theories discussed is to oppose anti-Semitism. Moreover, as mentioned below, Jews have been underrepresented in some theories and cultural trends that do not cast Jews in a bad light or at least do not necessarily do so—e.g., populism, paleoconservatism, and promotion of European national cultures.”

R: Excellent that Kmac admits that Jews wouldn’t be attracted to theories that don’t tear them down.
Kmac does bring out a good point that Jews are (or may be) promoting certain theories to oppose anti-Semitism. However, are ’populism, paleoconservatism, and promotion of European national cultures.’ truely semetic neutral. There is an other factor, which is class which may complicate this analysis. Do professionals, educated and the capitalists favor these kinds of ideas. If Jews are represented in these socio-economic class, it would go a long way to explain why they opposed him. For example, I think many jews opposed trump, not so much of because of his policy, but because of his blue collar sensibilities.

“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 sub-culture of the twentieth 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”
R: Fine jewish dominated but admits that a very small minority even know what is going on. Strikes against evolutionary theory.
Page 6
******“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 radicals), I provided evidence that in fact they did identify as Jews and were deeply concerned about Jewish issues despite surface appearances to the contrary”
R: I find this shocking. It is difficult to tease out motivations. It is speculation to claim to know someone’s unconscious desires when separated by time and space. I would expect one to be an expert on an individual’s biography before they could even claim anything about understanding their subconscious motivations. Didn’t see that level granular discussion in CoC, nor a nuanced discussion of motivation. When I read CoC it felt like quotes were cherry picked.

“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. [For example, Zionism is a Jewish movement that, until the establishment of Israel, was not a majority view within the Jewish community. It was nevertheless influential (e.g., obtaining the Balfour Declaration, pressuring President Truman to recognize Israel).]”
R: Again showing disagreement between jews on one of the most important issues of their time. This only serves to weaken Kmac’s general theory of jew’s behavior.

“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 [in Chapter 2] I provide a list of prominent Jewish social scientists who in my opinion do not meet the conditions outlined under (2) above.”
R: Fair. Point for Kmac

“Cofnas claims that I haven’t provided evidence that Jews involved in particular intellectual movements have often gone out of their way to recruit nonJews as visible leaders of the movement….. However, this phenomenon goes far beyond the intellectual and political movements discussed in CofC. In Chapter 6 of Separation and Its Discontents (pp. 193–196) I discuss several historical examples, beginning with the New Christians during the period of the Inquisition in fifteenth-century Spain. Jewish organizations had an active role in establishing and maintaining gentile- dominated organizations opposed to anti-Semitism in Germany in the period from 1870 to 1933 and in supplying materials without any indication of their source to anti-fascist candidates in the U.K. in the 1930s….” (so forth)”
R: never any discussion that maybe gentiles don’t want to see Jews suffer and be hurt? Also, reaching back to these examples seems like a stretch. 1500 century Spain? I would need to see tons of examples and from every day life. However, I suppose it is possible that Jews would seek gentiles to represent them, in the way companies may hire attractive salesmen.
Page 7
“As I note in Separation and Its Discontents, such a strategy makes excellent psychological sense: From an evolutionary perspective the intent is to make the Jewish cause appear to be in the interests of others as well. When goals are cast in ethnic or national terms, they are not likely to appeal to those outside the group….”
R: we have to give this point to Kmac. However, there may also be an opposite effect where an outsider can give critical points– take American idol, when a British judge plays the part of the “bad cop”. And interestingly, this concept is replicated across many popular entertainment shows, the foreigner – often British for music talent, French for cooking shows, Russian or Germain for engineering. In other words, outgroups can symbolize other factors not just bad or danger.

“Cofnas claims that I cherry-pick examples and ignore examples that do not fit my theory, pointing to examples like Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx. However, as noted above, there is no implication that all Jews (or all famous Jews) fit into a particular mold. “
R: Fine, what is your taxonomy or universal feature – Jews only make policy based on a moral self-interest?
“There was in fact strong opposition to Zionism within the Jewish community during the early decades of the twentieth century motivated by fears, based firmly in Jewish history, that Zionism among Diaspora Jews would be seen as disloyalty by their fellow citizens (see the sections titled “Zionism as a Risky Strategy” and “Zionist Extremism Becomes Mainstream” in “Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism,” 220–228).”
R:Fine, lets accept Kmac’s premise that Jews were afraid of creating Israel for the idea that supporting the creation was politically dangerous, that still means that local interests won out over existential interests. In other words, Jews looked after their own skin even if it meant other groups of Jews would suffer, which is ordinary self-interest. It speaks against Kmac’s overarching thesis of Jews looking out for Jews.
*****“Chomsky’s position has been outside the Jewish mainstream, although quite recently segments of liberal Jews have actively opposed central features of Zionism as it exists in Israel today (e.g., Philip Weiss (editor of Mondoweiss), Jewish Voice for Peace, J Street).” Like Chomsky, these Jews tend to be on the left, generally perceiving a conflict between contemporary leftist ideals of multicultural harmony (which they support) and the reality of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians.”
R: one of the most cited living scholars is Chomsky, a liberal atheist jew who’s most famous for criticizing Israel
When reviewing stakeholder theory, it is important not to ignore any parts (funding, intellectuals, positions etc)
Perhaps another hypothesis is that Jews, seek harmony because they view that as a moral good. However, this possibility is not mentioned. As seeking harmony is viewed as a self-interested behavior, which begs the question, what behavior would falsify Kmac’s claims of self-interested behavior drive Jewish politics.
“It’s also worth noting that although there has always been a substantial consensus on Israel since its establishment by American Jews, the Israel Lobby has maintained this consensus partly by policing the Jewish community by punishing dissenters (see here, here, here)—a very traditional mechanism of control within the Jewish community discussed in Chapter 7 of A People That Shall Dwell Alone. Nevertheless, dissent is growing within the Jewish community-“
R: point taken for kmat on policing.
*****R: Does Kmac’s theory predict or explain why there is drop in Jewish support for Israel?
Page 8
“These donors collectively contribute vastly out of proportion to their numbers and many of them are wellknown to be strong supporters of Israel. In the U.S., donors like Haim Saban (“a one-note person whose one note is Israel”) and Sheldon Adelson, prominent donors to the Democrat and Republican parties respectively, come to mind as primarily motivated to support pro-Israel policies. But they are not alone. On a list of “the top 50 donors to 527’s and super-PACs, eight of the 36 Republican bigs were Jewish, and of the 14 Democrats, only one was not Jewish.” The Democrats are basically funded by Jews, and Jewish donations to the GOP are too large to be ignored by politicians seeking higher office. President Trump’s largest donor was Sheldon Adelson (at least $25 million),… etc”
R: here kmac argues that Jews have a large influence in politics due to their large donations. Fine.
However, if money equals access and power, what percentage of money in total comes from Jews or these Jews? What about small donations, and money to candidates?
“Jewish participation on the left over the time span covered in the book (~1900–1970), and in general the point of that chapter is that Jewish leftists tended to have strong Jewish identifications and were quite concerned about anti-Semitism (perhaps not the case with Marx).”
R: this I cant speak to, as I am not knowledgeable in this area.

“With Emancipation into Europe, the axis of this moralism shifted from a horizontal to a vertical plane, splitting into the toplofty “mission to the Gentiles” of Reform Judaism on the one hand and, on the other, into Marx’s underclass of society and Freud’s underside of personality. In each case, proletariat and id were invested with a subversively pure moral critique of the hypocritical, if superior, civilization of the West”
R: inflammatory speech against intention jews for new ideas. I would contend that some of Freud’s ideas of repression valuable along with Marx’s critique of the division of labor (alienation). I may ad that Marxism was taken from dialectical materialism of Hegel, a gentile and utopian Christians. The first communists could be said to be Christians. Marx was – in his mind – using science to create a real society. Taken from this prospective Kmac is interpreting any scientific ideas as a threat or delegitimizes whites/Christianity, even if they are sourced from gentile ideas.

Page 9

******” He brings up affirmative action which I discuss briefly in Chapter 8. However, … I have never done an examination of the relative importance of different strands of Jewish activism and voting have been in the affirmative action debate and so don’t care to comment”
R:Killshot why would jews support affirmative action, which directly harms their interests. He doesn’t explain it, cant predict it nor care to

Page 11
******“Similarly, in the lead up to the Iraq war, there was considerable (I think decisive: here, here, here) influence from neoconservatives and Jewish organization like AIPAC, but polls indicated most Jews opposed the war.”
R:Killshot, in this vital issue – of war, Jews were against the Iraq war which is claimed by many Altrighters to be a war for Israel. Does mass opposition to the Iraq war falsify or invalidate Kmac’s theory. Lets grant Kmac’s premise that neocons are Jewish and are responsible for pushing the war. Were they necessary or sufficient? Does it matter that the vast majority of Jews were in opposition? According to Kmac’s theory, why were the majority of Jews against the Iraq war? Was It purely because they thought it would not benefit Israel? Maybe they didn’t think it would benefit the US, or both? Or perhaps they are morally opposed to a war of aggression?
*****“Is the theory presented in CofC predictive?”
R: Killshot. Admits his theory is not predictive. What about a war with Iran or Russia, or Polygamy, or sex with children, or animals? According to KMac would these be Jewish led movements?
Page 15
*****“Cofnas does not dispute my evidence that Boas was a strongly identified Jew who saw his work as combatting anti-Semitism and that he was motivate by his hatred for the Prussian aristocracy.”
R: Killshot on Cofnas

“I discuss the issue of the motivation of non-Jews who were involved in these movements in several places, essentially proposing three compatible reasons: identification with a group that sees itself as oppressed, evolutionarily influenced social learning mechanisms in which prominent individuals are looked up to and admired, and the material rewards available to those who sign on to the movement (see Chapter 1).”
R: again only nefarious motives on their behalf, however this attack is believable.

“I have expanded on these ideas in an article “Why are Professors Liberals” in which I use the work of Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse as a framework for understanding the characteristics of successful intellectual movements.10 (1) those involved in the movement had a complaint (anti-Semitism, cultural exclusion); (2) they were able to form cohesive, effective networks; (3) they had access to the most prestigious academic institutions.”
R: weak, there are no explanations for why these are true.
“To put it very crudely, Freud needed a goy” [(Chapter 4, 114]) and many on the radical left (who often felt out of place in what was essentially a Jewish milieu; Chapter 3, 71–72).
R:To claim that Freud brought Jung along is outrageous. It is not believable. Jung is devastatingly brilliant. His writings prove it. Even if we accept Kmac’s premise – that means that Freud thought there was strong enough resistance to his ideas just because he was not a gentile. How should a Jew act if he is not followed purely on his race.

*****I quote Benedict as saying we should study other cultures in order “to pass judgment on the dominant traits of our own civilization”— quite possibly a plea for tolerance for homosexuality
R: this may be interpreted in may ways. It seems that Kmac often makes the most convenient interpretation. The reason we study other cultures is to learn about them, appreciate them and take lessons from them so we may better ourselves.
Page 18
“Moreover, nothing rides on Herrnstein’s motives for doing what I regard as excellent research. In Chapter 2 he is listed as a prominent Jewish social scientist who does not fit the framework of CofC, and I am happy to leave it at that”
R: Does this change or alter your theory?

The capstone of his argument is that Jews moved our society away from Darwinism to a moral viewpoint. The effects are that we moved away from a materialist view but he shouldn’t so much blame Jews, but blame Nazis.
The core of the Jewish argument is that Kmac’s materialism is amoral. It will lead to the horrors of 20th century.
I think this is the most important point of all.

Posted in Jews, Kevin MacDonald | Comments Off on Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper

Am I Trying To Convert Nazis?

Jews ask me why I enjoy talking to Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, Kevin MacDonald, Roger Devlin, Mike Enoch, Eric Striker and other Alt Right types. I’m not sure why I love it, but I do love it.

It seems like 90% of my video chatters come from the Daily Stormer and I enjoy them too (though not as much as I enjoy talking with the elite intellectuals named above). They’re smart, funny and they help me better understand myself, my God, my religion, my people, and the world around me.

Jews ask me if I’m trying to convert these Nazis into philosemites. No, I’m not. I’m just talking. If I started thinking I could convert people to my way of thinking, others would sense that right away and stop talking to me. Also, my ego would get involved and I would imagine that I was some kind of Nazi whisperer. Luckily, I have no delusions about my rhetorical powers. I’m just a bloke talking to blokes about blokey things.

Posted in Alt Right, Jews, Nazi | Comments Off on Am I Trying To Convert Nazis?

Jewish Conspiracy Theories

A kindly goy tells me: You’re right that nobody who isn’t Orthodox can understand Orthodox Judaism—but that isn’t saying much from the pragmatic view, right? And I’ve thought about it some, and concluded that the Jewish religion is false now, even if it was true at some point in the past. I could be wrong, though! But I’m basing my judgment on a bit of experience with five or six Jewish friends and also on a preference for a world in which the imago dei principle is assumed, because I think without that assumption, various tribes will never even be able to agree on the basic nature of reality, let alone on values and theological stuff.

I need help in the world. Life has been justifiable, but not always easy. And I’ll take help from wherever I can get it. People who are tribal are less likely to help me, and so I suppose I’ll land on something like universalism and liberalism because I have no tribe. But I get why you’re doing differently, sort of—even if it doesn’t seem like ur ever been invited to that party myself.

Take it this way: the Cofnas paper really blew out my faith in academic argument. It changed my view, seems to have made me much darker. After that, MacDonald also seems like a sophist. This is, of course, a tactic. Obscurantism and obfuscation. And I note that the result is basically me going silent… so if this was all a Jewish plot to silence any would-be Hitlers, rest assured, it worked on me. Congrats. I can live with that.

Great getting Cofnas on. FWIW, he seems very smart to me. I don’t think it was fair the way he said the entire alt-right basically accepted KMac as gospel. But in the end it may be that we admit we were fooled, and would have been wiser simply admitting we were out of our expertise. I guess our in-group interest clouded our judgment and motivated our biased replies. So I’m comfortable bowing out now. Letting the rabbis rule & accepting their judgment in place of my own — or at least, not publicly arguing. Long live Israel.

Is this a fair takeaway from Cofnas’s refutation of MacDonald?: the Jews do play a disproportionate role in all intellectual endeavors, including, importantly, media, politics & policy. The Jews therefore played a disproportionate (but not necessarily unified) role in eviscerating WASP and white-American culture, traditions, and demographics in the second half of the 20th century… BUT… they didn’t do it as a group evolutionary strategy or out of a concern for Jewish interests. We should assume, therefore, that their motivations were the same as any other Americans’ on average. Yes?

I’m asking you because I trust your judgment more than my own on this, and because, while I’m moving on, I’d be happy to move on with as much a handle on reality as I can get. Would you say that Cofnas would accept my little summary there, more or less? Or am I still hearing incorrectly?

There is still the reality of Jewish overrepresentation. When it comes to Nobel prizes, I get it. But I don’t see how the default hypothesis fully explains the almost total control of media, for instance. Must I assume that everyone from Harvey Weinstein to Jake Tapper has an IQ of 180? Because if it’s not that, they argument has to overcome Unz’s take, even leaving aside the extraordinarily gifted. There are way more people in the Western world with IQs between 115-150 who are gentiles than there are who are Jewish. So they should own some of the major media corporations.

…but now, having conceded that I have no expertise in the science and deferring to NC, I just doubt my own thinking. And I’m happy to do that. Eventually those thoughts will stop if I ignore them, and then I can happily accept my station as a relatively successful person in a meritocratic globalist world order that was pretty-much pre-determined by genetics. Mind you, I’m still listening to you. I’m just tired of listening to me.

If reasonably smart IQ 120-130 people like us can’t effectively read a book like KMac’s,… what does that mean? Must we all simply await the ruling from the few IQ-160 ruling class types like Pinker? No use me reading Cofnas. What does Pinker day I should think about it?

I meant “what does Pinker say I should think about it?” — like, if you and I can read KMac and be persuaded, but ultimately we find out we were totally deluded when an IQ-160 comes along and reads KMac better than we did… then what’s the point of reading anything? Shouldn’t I just wait to receive my opinions from Cofnas from now on? This is the rabbinic model. It’s foreign to me, and uncomfortable — I always thought I was as competent as anyone. But it turns out I’m not. So, there’s no use having an opinion on anything I read because someone more qualified and smarter can blast all my thinking. So why waste my time like that? Even reading. Cofnas feels futile once I see his superiority. I’m just not an expert. But this model does imply a kind of hierarchy that leads to me falling silent and receiving my opinions from the authorities unless for some reason I happen to be the best educated smartest guy in the room at a given time.

Mu point is that I spent a bit of time reading MacDonald & Cofnas. And talking to you. And I came away feeling way more concerned about Jewish in-group, uh, dynamics… than I was in 2016. But Cofnas says I shouldn’t be, and everybody smarter than me tells me his paper is airtight. So I either trust myself and blow off the world’s greatest minds—and probably attribute to them some sort of in-group conniving—or I trust them (and you) and assume my own thinking is a mess somehow… even if I don’t see how or “feel” how.

My antisemitic feeling and my effort at a reasonably informed opinion must just be wrong. So, shrug. Whatever questions I still have must just be bigotry and a sort of mental virus… so I should let it go as quickly as possible, which is what I’m gonna do. Just change my focus.

Who are some gentiles that were persuaded by Cofnas? Maybe gentiles can’t think about truth, but they can only judge according to their in-group interests, and so they haven’t been able to see the light of reason even when they read Cofnas.

In a society of 1000 people, where 20 are Jewish, and Jews have a one-standard deviation advantage over whites, who are 650 of the thousand… I would be interested in seeing how a statistician would map that. Assume the average Ashkenazi IQ is 115, so 10 of the 20 have IQs below 115.

It’s not really exciting to me. It actually feels depressing to me. And it does beg Dennis’s repeated question: what is so sacred about globalist meritocracy that we should tolerate letting the Jewish ubermensch class rule over every aspect of our civilization? Would you expect me to be excited about that? Not only am I not excited, but I think it’s fake… but I also saw War Games, and I’m sick of reaching draws with the golem.

The GRE max is 800 in each section.

Cofnas: “Jews are going to dominate all the endeavors cuz they’re smarter.”

Me: “I doubt they’re smarter.”

You: “Based on what science Casey?”

Me: “Jonathan Michael Kaplan and others who show that isolating x-factors is impossible.”

You: “That’s been refuted.”

Me: “Well, I disagree.”

You: “Scientists say you’re wrong.”

Me: “Are they all Jews?”

You: “75% are.”

Me: “well, whatever. Fine.”

I mean what’s the point? I do not have the credentials to argue with Pinker. I don’t actually agree with him or you, but it obvious that I’m not going to convince you or even justify my own view to you. It’s like arguing theology. I find it tedious.

I do actually feel pretty happy. I’m convinced Jews think differently than I do. I’m fine with that. And I’m fine with my way. Postmodernism. No use continuing the dialog though. Nobody Jewish is hearing me, and I’m not hearing them.

But it’s not actually socially respectable. Didn’t you see the article today about the Jewish editor of NatGeo and her example of a photo from 1918 of some aboriginals with a caption “they’re less intelligent.” And Goldberg’s comment: we don’t do that kind of thing anymore. The default hypothesis doesn’t have legs in mainstream American discourse. If it justifies Jewish dominance, then it justifies black poverty. Not happening… you’ll have some autistic Jews and some Dylann Roofs all agreeing with Cofnas. But I’m out…

Now imagine that those 10 of 1000 with IQs over 115 own ALL of the major media corporations. Never mind that at least 50 of the 650 whites also have IQs over 115. When pressed, the Jews spin it this way: “well, 4 of our 10 have IQs over 160.” And the white says, “5 of our 50 have IQs over 150.”

Change my view.

Also nepotism. I mean obviously. Which btw fine call it networking, but Jewish lawyers (no doubt) argues successfully before the Supreme Court that “discriminatory” hiring should be illegal. Back when whites networked.

Your interview with Cofnas was good. And good luck with Spencer. Maybe you can have Steven Pinker on eventually.

I can’t tell if you’re just shilling or if you’re serious when you criticize the chat for conspiracy thinking, but can I suggest an earnest answer? It is because for normie gentile Americans, even the idea that Jews have disproportionate power and influence in all intellectual endeavors sounds like a shocking conspiracy theory. To go beyond that, and read a book (KMac’s) about *why* they might have such power—to even get that far, one has to have been willing to take up highly taboo conspiratorial thinking with an open mind. You seem to have lost track of just how solid this psychological firewall protecting Jews is in the mind of the average white American. If I said to my sister that Jews have disproportionate power… that would shock and appall him. So for the few who have the (whatever it is?—courage? gall?) to break through and think about Jewish influence, try to understand how disorienting that is. Our entire civilization is a conspiracy designed to keep us from noticing. And so once you notice, of course you question the Holocaust narrative.

But like I said I can’t tell when you’re being honest anymore—if that’s just a shit-talking point to keep viewership up or expose antisemites, okay, keep at it.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Jewish Conspiracy Theories

Richard Spencer Interview

* What is the current direction of the alt right?
* You mentioned the alt right is at each other’s throats. What’s going on? W Identity Europa? TRS?
* In your interview with Israeli TV, you mentioned, “I made mistakes recently.”
* What strikes me when you are interviewed or just on a podcast or giving a speech, is that you rarely take the easy way out… Many people are glib but few people are deep.
* what is William Regnery’s role with the Alt Right?
* Is alt right fundraising going up?
* If whites have agency, then the JQ is not that big. White problems are primarily the problems of whites.
* Did Greg Conte do anything wrong at MSU?
* How did the TWP come to be your muscle at MSU?
* I suspect a lot of people on the AR desperately want your approval and if they don’t get enough of it, they resent you.
* Do you think Judaism is a group evolutionary strategy?
* In your discussion with KMAC for, i saw a fascinating difference between your romantic philosophy and KMAC’s scientific method. You kept asking him if Jews were fundamentally in their essence a threat to white interests and he kept saying no, it is cultural choices after WWII by Jewish elites.
* Have you read the Nathan Cofnas critique of COC? What do you think?
* My chat, particularly the boots crowd rather than the suits crowd, is obsessed with holocaust revisionism. Is this a productive use of one’s time given that no leading Alt Right thinker is obsessed with WWII body counts. These same people like to say, “Richard Spencer is controlled opposition.” What are these people thinking? Why is that approach so appealing to them?
* Weakness for conspiracy theories…
* What do you think Mein Kampf? When the AR is called nazis, it is wrong denotatively but correct connotatively…because there is no meaningful difference in the Nazi Mein Kampf worldview and the AR. “The outrage against the AR is warranted” you said to Israeli TV. “the system should fear people like me.”
* Matt Heimbach?
* Eli Mosley?
* Kyle Bristow?

* What have you learned from being interviewed hundreds of times? Any patterns, cues or clues you pick up as the interview goes along?

* Vegas Tenold and his new book Everything you love will burn: “Spencer’s nationalism felt much more like an intellectual exercise performed for his own amusement than any form of deep-seated conviction.”

* Do you sorely miss the academic world or is the world you are in now sufficiently intellectually stimulating? With KMAC, I feel keenly his sense of loss of being part of the academy. His emotions are raw.

* Christians think Jews are waiting for the messiah to come…and the MSM always wants to know how you will create the white ethno-state. It’s like asking Jews how will you bring the messiah.

* You put effort into putting forward a positive vision for the AR, perhaps more than any other Anglo AR thinker.

Posted in Alt Right, Richard Spencer | Comments Off on Richard Spencer Interview

Jason Jorjani Fancied Himself an Intellectual Leader of a White Supremacist Movement — Then It Came Crashing Down

From The Intercept:

A WEEK AND A HALF after Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election, Jason Reza Jorjani took the stage at a white supremacist conference in Washington, D.C. Richard Spencer gave him an awkward hug and pat on the back before he shuffled to the podium and spoke into the microphone.

“In light of the outcome of the recent election, in which I think the rise of the ‘alt-right’ was the decisive factor,” Jorjani said, “it is especially meaningful for me to be here with you as the leader of what is frankly the most significant press in the ‘alt-right.’”

Jorjani and Spencer had not met in person until that November weekend at the conference, hosted by the National Policy Institute, a white supremacist “think tank.” The weekend was spiked with occasional Nazi salutes. Just the month before, Jorjani had become the editor-in-chief of Arktos Media, a publishing imprint for some of the most canonical texts of the far right. They soon combined forces in a shared office in a spacious loft in Alexandria, Virginia. To end any confusion over what the “alt-right” movement stood for and who its leaders were, Spencer, Jorjani, and Arktos chief executive Daniel Friberg launched the AltRight Corporation.

But as quickly as Jorjani rose within the far right’s ranks, so too did he fall. A year ago, the “alt-right” was in a campaign to rebrand white supremacy as an intellectually sophisticated movement, backed by a troll army. Yet in 2017, the far right saw its most publicly violent year full of street protests. Spencer himself seemed to have traded his glossy “think tank” networking events, like the one Jorjani appeared at, for white supremacist rallies. Spencer’s “college tour” began in 2016, according to Spencer, as a project of “intellectual activity” — but it frequently served to provide opportunity for his followers to publicly gather and shout “white power,” throw Nazi salutes into the air, and engage in violent battles with counterprotesters.

In their earlier days, Jorjani and his business partners had tried to perfume their brownshirt musings as a style of opposition intellectualism worthy of fair debate in the public sphere. When I first met Jorjani in December 2016, at the height of his rise in the far right, he proudly told me, “What happened is that a hyperintellectual, vanguardist movement used a U.S. presidential election to advance its agenda.” Over a plate of fesenjan, an Iranian stewed meat dish, and jeweled rice, he added, “The ‘alt-right’ doesn’t work for Donald Trump, it doesn’t work for the Republican Party, it doesn’t work for masses of Republican voters, and it certainly doesn’t work for evangelical Republicans.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Jason Jorjani Fancied Himself an Intellectual Leader of a White Supremacist Movement — Then It Came Crashing Down

Anti-Semitism Is Rising. Why Aren’t American Jews Speaking Up?

Jonathan Weisman writes:

Anti-Semitic hate crimes are on the rise, up 57 percent in 2017 from 2016, the largest single-year jump on record, according to the Anti-Defamation League. That increase came on top of the rise in incidents in 2016 that coincided with a brutal presidential campaign.

I have personally seen the anti-Semitism, in online insults, threatening voice mail messages and the occasional email that makes it through my spam filter.

If not quite a crisis, it feels like a proto-crisis, something to head off, especially when the rise of anti-Semitism is combined with hate crimes against Muslims, blacks, Hispanics and immigrants. Yet American Jewish leaders — the heads of influential, established organizations like the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Federations of North America — have been remarkably quiet, focused instead, as they have been for decades, on Israel, not the brewing storm in our own country.

But American Jews need to assert a voice in the public arena, to reshape our quiescent institutions and mold them in our image. And Jewish leadership must reflect its congregants, who are not sheep.

When the Anti-Defamation League, a century-old institution founded to combat anti-Semitism, released its guide to the “Alt Right and Alt Lite” last year, Ohio’s Republican state treasurer, Josh Mandel, who is Jewish, actually expressed support for two of the people on the list: Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec, conservative provocateurs who have found notoriety in the Trump era. “Sad to see @ADL_National become a partisan witch hunt group targeting people for political beliefs. I stand with @Cernovich & @JackPosobiec,” Mr. Mandel proclaimed on Twitter above a link to Mr. Cernovich’s screed charging that the league was trying to have him killed.

Mr. Cernovich advocates I.Q. tests for immigrants and “no white guilt,” and is an unapologetic misogynist. Last summer, he circulated a cartoon depicting H. R. McMaster, the White House national security adviser, as a dancing marionette with George Soros pulling his strings and a disembodied, wrinkled hand labeled “Rothschilds” controlling strings attached to Mr. Soros.

Mr. Posobiec has been one of the promulgators of fake news, including the “Pizzagate” story that claimed that Hillary Clinton helped run a child sex-trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor and the claim that a young Democratic National Committee staff member, Seth Rich, was murdered by the Clinton campaign.

For drawing attention to these men, the Anti-Defamation League was tarred as a partisan organization by an elected Jewish Republican. I did not see any organized effort to rally around the institution, one of the few major Jewish groups in the United States that is still not predominantly engaged in debate over Israel.

Steve Sailer comments:

Of course, as you recall, many of them were hate hoaxes perpetrated by that Jewish guy in Israel, the black leftist journalist, and who knows how many more hoaxers? But how can anybody expect New York Times editor Jonathan Weisman to remember all the way back to 2017?

…I think a fair amount of the agitation of elite journalists comes from their largely committing to Twitter a half decade ago. The seemingly minor differences in how Twitter worked from how email, comments, discussion groups and so forth had operated led to a huge growth in ethnic paranoia among their ranks, as the title of Weisman’s book suggests. (I’ll try to flesh this theory out more when Weisman’s book arrives.)

…iSteve commenter Anonym notes:

Help! The poor, defenceless Anti-Defamation League is being defamed! There needs to be some sort of organization, maybe a League, to defend the ADL. An ADL for the ADL. That’s a great idea.

But hey, what if the ADL for the ADL comes under attack by virulent anti-Semites? The only foolproof solution is an ADL for the ADL for the ADL.


* If they’re only 2% of the population they have to have 49 times the firepower to make up for it. Make sense?

* “Ohio’s Republican state treasurer, Josh Mandel, who is Jewish, actually expressed support for two of the people on the list: Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec, conservative provocateurs who have found notoriety in the Trump era. …”

How . . . unusual Mandel would specify those two individuals for approval. Cernovich, who may be Jewish himself (have seen conflicting info) is quite specifically NOT alt-right, believing in civic nationalism and the melting pot, and his 2nd wife is an Iranian Muslim. Posobiec is another questionable individual to much of the alt-right, both regarding his ethnicity and perceived government connections.

Otherwise this is, of course, more of the standard persecution paranoia porn common among Jews in America; cue (((Tyrion2))) from England to explain how Weisman is really not saying what you think he’s saying, Steve. He’s really a super patriotic nationalist American who’s writing a super-clever argument that actually advocates that which he theoretically denounces.

* >Mr. Cernovich advocates I.Q. tests for immigrants and “no white guilt,”

Wouldn’t that be PRO-Jewish? I mean, I’m assuming it’s the low end of the IQ distribution he wants to keep out, so wouldn’t Jews be the ones best able to take advantage of that?

I wish these people would make up their minds about whether IQ matters or not. Because it does actually tie in with the whole “no white guilt” thing. This is kind of how things go:

Person: “Man, Jewish people sure do have an awful lot of power in the media.”

ADL: “Well, you have to understand. That’s just because our IQs are so much higher!”

Person: “OK. Well then, maybe the reason white people are so much more successful than black people is because our IQs are higher than theirs? Maybe we don’t have anything to feel guilty about?”

ADL: “You’re banned from YouTube!!!”

Dealing with these people is just never very pleasant. I don’t know where they got the idea that serving as “trusted flaggers” on YouTube and getting people’s channels shut down is going to make people like them any more either.

* As Leon Wieseltier noted in a video Sailer put up a couple months back, Jews historically made vertical connections with the princes and rulers instead of horizontal connections with the local hoi polloi. Had they made these horizontal connections,…

* Jews have been quiet and polite for too long. And not only don’t they have any wealth or power, what little they do have they never use to advance their own interests. They’re always doing things for others, never for themselves. Alan Dershowitz used to make this argument.

* I’m surprised at the hostility aimed at Weisman. Isn’t he the guy who came up with the Jew-tracker regarding the Iran deal?

* “But American Jews need to assert a voice in the public arena,”

Translation = there are still goys left we need to silence.

It must be frustrating to control so much of the traditional media, entertainment industry and social media and still those dastardly goys don’t know their place

* In the old days of print media things went through editors, who kept things within limits. The leftist media now publishes a lot of things on social media, which is completely unedited, and does not seem to edit pieces very much published on regular websites. You frequently see basic errors that anyone taking a second look at the piece- even the author doing a double check- should have corrected.

Leftists have developed the habit of saying more aggressive and extreme things, and they don’t seem to realize that the subjects of their hate and contempt can read and understand what they are saying. A lot of people who didn’t used to be “anti-semitic” have become so by reading what Jews really think about them on Twitter.

* People talk about “Black Twitter”, but “Jewish Twitter” is something largely unspoken of. Not having an account myself, I’ve still seen enough screencaps to believe that it is a thing.

It is quite interesting and revealing to see journalists and media figures speaking with less of a filter.

* I have a friend (actually he’s my law partner) who is Jewish and follows the movements and polemics of white nationalism and the like with a passion. He’s convinced that there is going to be a white nationalist uprising in the Pacific Northwest very soon based on what he’s been reading.

I told him he’s crazy. Portland? Seattle? These are like the most devote liberal places in the country. They might as well be part of the EU.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Anti-Semitism Is Rising. Why Aren’t American Jews Speaking Up?