Here’s a selection of his recent tweets:
Attention alt-righters/@RichardBSpencer: Your most important intellectual, Kevin MacDonald, says that you should welcome Jews into your movement. Indeed, it would be "nonsense" not to. https://t.co/57cfwtFD8y
— Nathan Cofnas (@nathancofnas) April 29, 2018
* Jews tried to be white nationalists. E.g., 40% of the speakers at the first AmRen conference were Jews. But they got chased away by Kevin MacDonald fans. It’s ironic: MacDonald predicts there won’t be white nationalist Jews, and there aren’t that many because of MacDonald.
* As soon as a non-anti-Semitic white nationalist organization was created, Jews showed up and said “We’re here to help.” White nationalists told them to piss off, now complain that Jews don’t support them.
* If white nationalism weren’t anti-Semitic, I think Jews were be intensely involved.
* [Jared] Taylor recently strongly endorsed Identity Evropa, which prohibits Jews from being members. He would never endorse a white nationalist organization that excluded Slavs (or other gentile whites). Jews are now de facto second-class citizens in AmRen even if Taylor says otherwise.
* He did make some more ambiguous statements, too. In any case it’s clear that he’s willing to be allied with open anti-Semites who say Jews should be excluded from white nationalism.
* Jared Taylor never took a clear public stand on Jews. He didn’t expel anti-Semites from AmRen, so it got Nazified.
* I’ve heard several stories about Jews who used to attend but stopped because other attendees were confronting them with Jewish conspiracy theories. Seems clear that they are much less represented among speakers, though I haven’t collected the data on that.
* Also, suppose nannying hurts the majority because the majority doesn’t need it (I agree). What about the minority that does need it? Shouldn’t their suffering also be part of the moral equation?
* I’m sympathetic to libertarianism. But I don’t see why an IQ=80 obese person who can’t understand how to treat his diabetes is better off with unlimited freedom.
* People who subscribe to [Charles] Murray’s position are debating on Twitter but not on television, in major newspapers, in any sociology journals, etc.
Friends writes:
* 1) ‘Excludes jews’ isn’t closed under the ‘endorses’ relation. Not if you have a moral commitment to freedom of association.
2) If there are exclusively Jewish organizations, advocacy groups, etc. it’s not morally legitimate for there to be exclusively gentile advocacy groups?
Sean Last and The Alt Hype made two of their worst videos ever this week.
There were a number of soft spots in Sean and Ryan’s videos that’d be easy to press on. Among them, that there didn’t seem to be a statistically significant difference in the views of Jews and Gentile college educated whites regarding affirmative action as an anti-white policy. It was observably true on the data he was reading off of…but he felt like the better comparison to make would be between Jews and the white average.
Basically everything is interpreted incorrectly. He wasn’t controlling for education, SES, and geography. He needs to do that jointly to test the DH. It’s an hour and a half jam-packed with problems. It would be a big undertaking to go through all of it.
He also didn’t look at Jewish representation in hard Vs soft sciences
Ryan basically says Jews run the cushy science programs like sociology at the end of his video and that they gravitate toward those fields
But we’d have to see how Jewish overrreresentetion in, say, chemistry compares to overrepresentation in gender studies
In order to determine if this is a “Jews gravitate toward subversive soft sciences” thing or just a “Jews are over-represented in all science in general” thing.
It is often asserted that, when it comes to taboo topics like race, genes and IQ, scholars should be held to higher evidentiary standards or even censored entirely because of the harm that might result if their findings became widely known. There is held to be an asymmetry whereby the societal costs of discussing certain topics inevitably outweigh any benefits from doing so. This paper argues that no such asymmetry has been empirically demonstrated, and that stifling debate around taboo topics can itself do active harm. To the extent that the paper’s argument has force, it cannot simply be taken for granted that, when in doubt, stifling debate around taboo topics is the ethical thing to do.
