A goy friend says: Wish you had been a bit more “down the middle” over the past 15 months leading up to the Cofnas paper. I feel like I got overpowered because you were obviously the expert in Jewishness and so I accepted all you were saying all along—which was mostly MacDonald & then Hitler—and then all the sudden you went full “nevermind—Jews are mostly benign.” You were showing me that I was wrong to trust you for fifteen months, and then sort of asking me to trust you going forward. Too much turbulence.
If Jewish behavior is largely determined by IQ & “location,” then I want you to reconsider your take on Northern Europeans being evolutionarily adapted to trustfulness. The Cofnas article indicates nothing of Jews being by nature “more tribal” or more ethnocentric than whites, and so I need better evidence that whites are by nature less ethnocentric… the way my thinking goes is that I suspect this “whites are less ethnocentric” thing is a post-hoc justification of a somewhat nefarious “infiltration” by Jews into the perhaps-reasonably-tight ethnocentricity of whites.
In other words, I think white unity was maybe just as strong as any other ethnic unity, but because Jews can pass as whites, they were able to erode it. As a result, whites became more mistrustful of each other (Putnam showed this — diversity increases mistrust not only of out-groups but even of in-groups).
The point is: we had a tight-knit in-group identity, and then the confidence men showed up and started abusing that in-group trust for their own gain. Then, *since whites do have agency*, and *since lying is a consensual act*, whites became defensively more mistrustful to protect themselves… thus whiteness finally became–as a reaction to the hucksterism of those passing as white who nevertheless felt no attachment to the white in-group–less communitarian, on average.
I don’t need to study. I’m deducing from two possible premises: either Jews are more ethnocentric, in which case surely that’s part of their success, or else they aren’t, and you should reconsider saying whites are less ethnocentric because of evolution. I’m pointing out that you’re having it both ways. If Jews are significantly more ethnocentric, then Cofnas’s default hypothesis almost certainly doesn’t totally explain their success in America. I don’t care which it is — but it can’t be both.
More logical inconsistency:
Cofnas: Jews will be overrepresented in all intellectual fields.
Gelman: Jews aren’t overrepresented in the Ivies.
…which is it? The Gelman argument essentially quantifies the real world effect of the default hypothesis: Jews are 2% of America, but possibly 10% of American Ivy League students. So, okay, we should expect *maybe* 1 of 6 major media corporations to be owned by a Jew, and maybe 1 Supreme Court Justice, and maybe 1 of 10 CNN pundits to be Jewish. That would be on the scale Gelman suggests.
The thrust of Gelman is “Jews aren’t particularly overrepresented.” The thrust of Cofnas is, “they are, but it’s fine.” Square these up?
You: “What pct of people IQ-150 in America are Jewish? About 25%.” And then you added geography to that, to suggest Jews should be almost as overrepresented in media and politics as they are… but they’re only 10% at Harvard. They’re underrepresented in the Ivies, by your logic.
Cofnas won’t answer me btw. That’s why I’m asking you. Also, I googled “how overrepresented should Jews be based on the default hypothesis,” but it said, “did you mean ‘I support Israel?’ “