If @TOOEdit is the most important intellectual of the Alt Right, as @RichardBSpencer says, then the one (@nathancofnas) who dethrones the king becomes the new king, right? And speaks at the next AR and NPI conferences?
— (((Luke Ford))) (@lukeford) March 17, 2018
I asked Nathan Cofnas: “Some people are saying to me that you only came up with a few mistakes by Kevin MacDonald. I said you were limited by 12,000 words and that if you had 120,000 words, you could list ten times as many. Is that fair?”
He replied: “Yes. The more you dig the more mistakes you find. I had to cut some good material to stay below the (for a journal) generous word limit, and I don’t doubt that I could find a lot more mistakes if kept looking. There’s also an important distinction to draw between the sorts of minor mistakes that appear in all legitimate academic work, and huge blunders and distortions that are systematic and which undermine the main argument. I think the mistakes I point out in the paper are of the latter sort.”
Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23)
JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18)
STANDING ON A WOOD CRATE, CRITIQUING NATHAN COFNAS ON KMAC (3-25-18)
Nathan Cofnas: Still No Evidence for a Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy (1-8-23)
Nathan Cofnas Interview March 20, 2018
JF Gariepy’s Review Of The Nathan Cofnas Critique
JF Gariepy’s Review Of The Nathan Cofnas Critique II
The Cofnas Critique Gets A Challenge From Historian J. Otto Pohl (2-16-19)
The Cofnas Critique Gets A Challenge From Historian J. Otto Pohl II
Oxford University’s Nathan Cofnas Critiques KMAC’s Culture Of Critique Book (3-10-18)
Comments at my Youtube channel:
* ‘Antifa is winning,’ Richard Spencer has said. He is saying precisely what I would say if I were an infiltrator trying to demoralise the alt-right or damage its public perception. He is saying what I would say if I wanted to help the left or boost the morale of Antifa. This isn’t the first time that Richard Spencer inserted a little remark for the media to latch on to that encourages the enemy and undermines the movement. He says a lot of good things, but then he always likes to put in that one precalculated statement for the media to latch onto – the statement that actually undermines the movement. I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but just keeps doing the same thing. I am beginning to suspect he is doing it on purpose.
The fact of the matter is, if you understanding anything about the growth of political movements or psychological warfare, EVEN WHEN YOUR OPPONENT IS WINNING you don’t go around telling people that they are winning. You don’t say anythying that supports the PERCEPTION that you are on the losing side, since the ultimate success or failure of your movement all depends on beliefs and perceptions in the first place.
There is only one situation in whcih you might want to say the enemy is winning and that you’re on the losing side – and that’s whe you want to give your enemy a false sense of confidence so that they let their guard down or do something self-demaging. And it is not clear to me that Richard Spencer is trying to do anything like this. He is helping Antifa and hurting us.
* Maybe that’s why Richard Spencer looked so dejected in his recent video after he spoke at Michigan State University. A lot is going wrong for the new Right.
* Laurent Guyénot It is almost always in reference to their Jewishness that such opinion makers, who are often ardent Zionists, proclaim themselves universalists: see for example how Rabbi Joachim Prinz, a German Zionist who in 1934 had applauded the Nazi state for being “built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race,” declared in 1963, as chairman of the American Jewish Congress, that he supported the African-American civil rights movement “as a Jew.”[22] “Jewish universalism” is a contradiction in terms and therefore necessarily deceptive. It is self-deception in the case of most Jews, who believe what they have been taught by their representative elites ever since the Haskalah: that there is no contradiction in being a tribalist at home and a universalist in the street—provided that, in each of their universalist stand, they do not lose sight of the important question: “Yes, but is it good for the Jews?”
* LUKE would intellectually stomp Ryan Dawson’s brains out on Race Realism.
But, Ryan would mop the floor with Luke on Israel. It would be some real blood sports. It would make for a highly rated, highly viewed debate. Both Ryan and Luke would learn a lot from each other and it would make them both a lot smarter, it would be very enlightening for the audience too. Luke should reach out to Ryan or to Andy Warski. Ryan has a large following and Luke could pick up a lot of new subscribers. I’d literally pay money to see this debate. Ryan is so cocky and intellectually arrogant, I’d love to see someone wipe that smug look off his face. Ryan will try to argue its all culture and race has zero to do with it. This would be an easy victory for race realism and Luke Ford.
