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.”
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:
“My book was incendiary, and I knew that.” Shows awareness for the situation
R: Draws a sympathetic character, honestly speaks about his troubles
“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.
*****“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?
*****”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.
“ 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.
******“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.
“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 https://sites.google.com/site/jcfdewinter/most-highly-cited-scientists
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?
“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.
******” 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
******“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?
*****“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.
“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.