{"id":121020,"date":"2018-03-19T07:15:22","date_gmt":"2018-03-19T15:15:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020"},"modified":"2023-08-27T16:54:35","modified_gmt":"2023-08-28T00:54:35","slug":"kevin-macdonald-discusses-the-nathan-cofnas-paper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020","title":{"rendered":"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Kevin MacDonald joined me on my <A HREF=\"http:\/\/youtube.com\/lukeisback\">Youtube channel<\/a> Tuesday night and Nathan Cofnas enters an hour after Kevin leaves and here is <A HREF=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/323918530_Kevin_MacDonald%27s_Response_with_Comments_by_Nathan_Cofnas\">Nathan&#8217;s rebuttal<\/a> to <A HREF=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/323881702_REPLY_TO_NATHAN_COFNAS\">Kevin&#8217;s rebuttal<\/a>) and Richard Spencer joins me at 5pm Wednesday (CA time). <\/p>\n<p>Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23)<\/p>\n<p><script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=\"https:\/\/rumble.com\/embedJS\/uajap1\"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+\"\/?url=\"+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+\"&args=\"+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, \"script\", \"Rumble\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div id=\"rumble_v2ctpd6\"><\/div>\n<p><script>\nRumble(\"play\", {\"video\":\"v2ctpd6\",\"div\":\"rumble_v2ctpd6\"});<\/script><\/p>\n<p>JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18)<\/p>\n<p><script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=\"https:\/\/rumble.com\/embedJS\/uajap1\"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+\"\/?url=\"+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+\"&args=\"+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, \"script\", \"Rumble\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div id=\"rumble_ve5u0b\"><\/div>\n<p><script>\nRumble(\"play\", {\"video\":\"ve5u0b\",\"div\":\"rumble_ve5u0b\"});<\/script><\/p>\n<p>STANDING ON A WOOD CRATE, CRITIQUING NATHAN COFNAS ON KMAC (3-25-18)<\/p>\n<p><script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=\"https:\/\/rumble.com\/embedJS\/uajap1\"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+\"\/?url=\"+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+\"&args=\"+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, \"script\", \"Rumble\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div id=\"rumble_v2u14ze\"><\/div>\n<p><script>\nRumble(\"play\", {\"video\":\"v2u14ze\",\"div\":\"rumble_v2u14ze\"});<\/script><\/p>\n<p>Nathan Cofnas: Still No Evidence for a Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy (1-8-23)<\/p>\n<p><script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=\"https:\/\/rumble.com\/embedJS\/uajap1\"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+\"\/?url=\"+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+\"&args=\"+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, \"script\", \"Rumble\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div id=\"rumble_v21v3nc\"><\/div>\n<p><script>\nRumble(\"play\", {\"video\":\"v21v3nc\",\"div\":\"rumble_v21v3nc\"});<\/script><\/p>\n<p>Nathan Cofnas Interview March 20, 2018<\/p>\n<p><script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=\"https:\/\/rumble.com\/embedJS\/uajap1\"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+\"\/?url=\"+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+\"&args=\"+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, \"script\", \"Rumble\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div id=\"rumble_vbuyfx\"><\/div>\n<p><script>\nRumble(\"play\", {\"video\":\"vbuyfx\",\"div\":\"rumble_vbuyfx\"});<\/script><\/p>\n<p>JF Gariepy&#8217;s Review Of The Nathan Cofnas Critique<\/p>\n<p><script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=\"https:\/\/rumble.com\/embedJS\/uajap1\"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+\"\/?url=\"+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+\"&args=\"+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, \"script\", \"Rumble\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div id=\"rumble_vas3gl\"><\/div>\n<p><script>\nRumble(\"play\", {\"video\":\"vas3gl\",\"div\":\"rumble_vas3gl\"});<\/script><\/p>\n<p>JF Gariepy&#8217;s Review Of The Nathan Cofnas Critique II<\/p>\n<p><script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=\"https:\/\/rumble.com\/embedJS\/uajap1\"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+\"\/?url=\"+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+\"&args=\"+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, \"script\", \"Rumble\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div id=\"rumble_vas3d9\"><\/div>\n<p><script>\nRumble(\"play\", {\"video\":\"vas3d9\",\"div\":\"rumble_vas3d9\"});<\/script><\/p>\n<p>The Cofnas Critique Gets A Challenge From Historian J. Otto Pohl (2-16-19)<\/p>\n<p><script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=\"https:\/\/rumble.com\/embedJS\/uajap1\"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+\"\/?url=\"+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+\"&args=\"+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, \"script\", \"Rumble\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div id=\"rumble_vbuydz\"><\/div>\n<p><script>\nRumble(\"play\", {\"video\":\"vbuydz\",\"div\":\"rumble_vbuydz\"});<\/script><\/p>\n<p>The Cofnas Critique Gets A Challenge From Historian J. Otto Pohl II<\/p>\n<p><script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=\"https:\/\/rumble.com\/embedJS\/uajap1\"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+\"\/?url=\"+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+\"&args=\"+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, \"script\", \"Rumble\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div id=\"rumble_v2u7su9\"><\/div>\n<p><script>\nRumble(\"play\", {\"video\":\"v2u7su9\",\"div\":\"rumble_v2u7su9\"});<\/script><\/p>\n<p>Oxford University&#8217;s Nathan Cofnas Critiques KMAC&#8217;s Culture Of Critique Book (3-10-18)<\/p>\n<p><script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=\"https:\/\/rumble.com\/embedJS\/uajap1\"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+\"\/?url=\"+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+\"&args=\"+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, \"script\", \"Rumble\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div id=\"rumble_vfvdq5\"><\/div>\n<p><script>\nRumble(\"play\", {\"video\":\"vfvdq5\",\"div\":\"rumble_vfvdq5\"});<\/script><\/p>\n<p><A HREF=\"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s12110-018-9310-x\">Nathan Cofnas responds<\/a> <A HREF=\"http:\/\/quillette.com\/2018\/03\/15\/alt-right-gets-wrong-jews\/\">(Quillette)<\/a>: &#8220;<A HREF=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/323881702_REPLY_TO_NATHAN_COFNAS\">Just read it<\/a>. Pretty much what I expected. He repeats his arguments in more or less the same style, doesn&#8217;t address my arguments head on and in some key cases just ignores them. Probably I will publish an annotated version of the PDF.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I think his theory is like feminism. No matter what happens feminists can explain it in terms of the &#8220;patriarchy.&#8221; Women make less money than men?&#8211;Patriarchy (obviously). Women are more likely to win custody battles?&#8211;Patriarchy<br \/>\n(because judges stereotype them as suited for a maternal role). Women are less likely to write Wikipedia articles than men?&#8211;Patriarchy (silences women&#8217;s voices). By explaining everything, feminism ends up explaining nothing. Similarly, MacDonald&#8217;s theory is formulated so that it is consistent with basically all Jewish behavior. Jews are<br \/>\nsupposed to act to advance Jewish interests, but it&#8217;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.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><A HREF=\"https:\/\/www.spreaker.com\/user\/radiomenefrego\/mnf-avsnitt-22\">Click here for the podcast.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Stephen emails: &#8220;Luke, I just saw that KMac went on a podcast &#8220;Me ne frego&#8221; yesterday to discuss Cofnas&#8217; paper. It&#8217;s a Swedish (I think) podcast who occasionally do shows in English of a high, somewhat intellectual quality.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><A HREF=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/nathancofnas\">Nathan Cofnas<\/a> replies to me: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I&#8217;m not convinced by <A HREF=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=8xzFCbfLsbA\">Casey&#8217;s point<\/a> about the President&#8217;s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. I had another paragraph on MacDonald&#8217;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:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;MacDonald (1998a:283) writes: \u201cThe 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).\u201d However, there is nothing about the desirability of changing the racial status quo of the U.S. on page 42 of the PCIN\u2019s report. In response to an email asking for clarification, MacDonald pointed out two passages on pages 107 and 108. Page 107 says that \u201cwhat succeeded in maintaining a \u2018racial status quo\u2019 was not the arbitrary and unsuccessful national origins formula, but the reduction in the total amount of immigration.\u201d 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 \u201csuccessful\u201d in achieving the goal for which it was established, because \u201cthe distribution of actual immigration (quota and nonquota) varies considerably from that of the quotas themselves\u201d (p. 6 of the report). Page 108 of the report says that the \u201crigidity [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.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>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 \u201c100 aliens (and members of their immediate families) who are certified as useful in executing the intelligence mission of the Central Intelligence Agency.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>You probably saw that KMac gave an interview about the paper. He doesn&#8217;t address any of my arguments. But he says he&#8217;s publishing a more detailed response tomorrow.<\/p>\n<p>I agree with <A HREF=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=8xzFCbfLsbA\">your response to Casey<\/a>. 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 &#8220;white people,&#8221; not just for NW Europeans. If the Jews cited in the PCIN&#8217;s report were undermining NW European unity in order to promote white unity, it&#8217;s not obvious how this would constitute an attack on the American system as it was originally conceived. MacDonald&#8217;s complaint against Jews certainly isn&#8217;t that they promote white unity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Why do I feel so intensely sympathetic to Kevin MacDonald? Because his academic ostracism reminds me of <A HREF=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Desmond_Ford\">what happened to my father in 1980<\/a>. I was 14. I saw what that did to my dad, to my family, to me, to our friends, and to our community.  <\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;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&#8217;m talking to my father circa 1980, <A HREF=\"http:\/\/www.lukeford.net\/luke_ford\/bio\/l1.html\">the year our lives forever changed<\/a>, and not for the good. <\/p>\n<p>So that&#8217;s why I was going around telling people to read COC. I wanted them to better understand my story.<\/p>\n<p><A HREF=\"https:\/\/katana17.wordpress.com\/2018\/03\/24\/luke-ford-with-macdonald-vs-cofnas-on-culture-of-critique-mar-2018-transcript\/\">Kantana writes<\/a>: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Luke Ford, an Australian living in the USA, who \u201cconverted\u201d to Judaism in 1993, interviews Kevin MacDonald and his response to a recent critique of his highly ignored (by academia), yet important book, \u201cThe Culture of Critique\u201c, by the 30 year old, academically unknown, New York jew, Nathan Cofnas. Cofnas was scheduled to come on with MacDonald, but was unable to, due to time zone differences, as he\u2019s in England, studying at Oxford. <\/p>\n<p>Ford plays somewhat of a devil\u2019s advocate on behalf of Cofnas, quoting some of Cofnas\u2019, yet to be released, responses to MacDonald\u2019s 18,0000 word response to Cofnas\u2019s critique.<\/p>\n<p>This transcript covers  the first 71 minute part of the Youtube video with MacDonald, and not (currently) the remaining part of the total 220 minute video, where Cofnas does appear in the last third of it.<br \/>\nFord: What is your perspective on the default hypothesis and why your perspective on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy is superior?<br \/>\nMacDonald: Well the default hypothesis is just absolutely the most basic thing. I mean, it\u2019s like jews are smart. I haven\u2019t looked at it lately, but I guess it\u2019s the idea that simply the jews are smarter, or something. And that explains everything. On the other hand, I mean, what I\u2019m trying to do is more than that. Acknowledge that jews are smart, they are on average. But the default hypothesis is the simplest possible explanation that might account for it.<\/p>\n<p>[04:02]<\/p>\n<p>I\u2019m trying to do something more ambitious. Nothing wrong with that. It\u2019s just a matter of finding if it\u2019s true, or not. I mean, I have to show it\u2019s true, but if I do show, then I\u2019ve shown something more than the default hypothesis. And that is, you know, in science you want the truth. You don\u2019t want, simplicity is wonderful, but the default hypothesis is certainly is good. It\u2019s something I guess. But it\u2019s not going to be where you want to be ultimately. You want to find out were jewish motivations important? Were the sense of jewish interests important? Those are the kinds of things you want to do.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Now one thing that\u2019s interesting about the Cofnas critique is that Cofnas is obviously a race realist, and so is Steven Pinker. And I think there were two other jews and a non jew on the peer review are signing off on a paper of race realism. Did you see any significance to that?<\/p>\n<p>[05:02]<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well it\u2019s interesting. I had heard that I guess. That he is a race realist, which is wonderful. And I think Pinker is also. I mean, I don\u2019t know about Pinker. The only thing I\u2019ve seen by Pinker that suggests that is he does believe that jews are smarter. And he does believe that there\u2019s some kind of selective pressures within the jewish community to produce that. That\u2019s certainly part way there. I don\u2019t know if he believes in black White IQ differences, I really don\u2019t, but it\u2019s interesting. It\u2019s part way. It\u2019s shows he\u2019s not completely, you know, got his head in the sand! And then yeah he\u2019s a pretty smart guy. I\u2019m not denying that either.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: If these if these professors are signing off on an academic paper, you know, based on race realism, saying that jews are smarter, they are implicitly signing off that other people are less intelligent.<\/p>\n<p>[06:01]<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: They are. And I think, you know, they would not want to talk about blacks being smarter than, \u2026 the Whites being smarter than blacks, or something like that. Although I\u2019m not sure. But I\u2019ve never seen anything by Pinker suggesting he believes that.<\/p>\n<p>And I haven\u2019t read really anything of Cofnas at all apparently. Apparently he did something about Samuel Morton, the 19th century anthropologist. I got some email about that. And it did suggest that he was more of a race realist, or something. But I, you know, I really don\u2019t know anything about the man, except seeing this article he did about me.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: So was this the first time in your memory that you heard the name Nathan Cofnas?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yeah! That was the only time, you know, and it sort of shocked me! It took me by surprise. It, what happened Saturday was it Saturday night?<\/p>\n<p>[07:01]<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Something like that and I didn\u2019t get going on it. I sort of glanced at it on Sunday and then I started working on a reply on Monday. Pretty furiously, and I ended up with 18 thousand words for heaven\u2019s sake, it in a rather short period of time. So it\u2019s rather intense. I don\u2019t like things hanging out there! You know, when someone posts saying, you know, there\u2019s an automatic feeling:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWow! This guy knows what he\u2019s doing! You know, and he\u2019s really nailed MacDonald and everything!\u201d<\/p>\n<p>I just don\u2019t like the idea that it\u2019s sitting out there. So, I mean, I could have taken more time, maybe done a little better job, but and I may revise it in the future. But I wanted to get it out there! I don\u2019t like things sitting out there.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: One thing I loved about your rebuttal and about your writing in general, is the emotional honesty! Like you don\u2019t mind [08:02] putting yourself on the line and using your own life and the most painful parts of your life as examples of your theories.<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: [chuckling] well, you know, I\u2019m used to it! I\u2019ve been defending myself for 20 years! I mean, not like this quite. But if you go to my website I have a section on replies to my critics. And people have been all over me 20 years. At my university as I said, in the introduction, or footnote. I mean, I was subjected to intense hostility on faculty email lists, and people arguing against different things. They never really went after \u201cCulture of Critique\u201d, but they made points about different things.<\/p>\n<p>And I was for a while in the late 90s after the books came out I was on this history email discussion, saying, you know, about jewish history. Somebody got me on there. And boy, that was intense! , because they were really going after me! But, you know, I you know, [09:02] I answered them as best I could, and I didn\u2019t feel I was being nailed, you know. So I\u2019m used to it! I\u2019ve got a whole folder what I got. It\u2019s called \u201cDefense\u201d where I\u2019ve written all these defenses of my work. And it\u2019s repetitive! So I\u2019ve seen it all, basically.<\/p>\n<p>And I\u2019ve been around the block on a lot of these things. And one thing that surprised me about Cofnas is he\u2019d seem to think that having a counterexample, if you find a jew who criticized psychoanalysis, or criticizes Israel, or something, I mean, as if that can refute what I\u2019m saying! I just didn\u2019t understand how you could think that! Because I mean, I have seen it before and it\u2019s remarkable that came up so often in his critique.<\/p>\n<p>[10:00]<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Yeah. How much explanatory power does the default hypothesis have for jewish intellectual influence? Does it does it account for 90% of it, do you think?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well, I wouldn\u2019t want to venture a guess on that. I mean, there are a lot of jews, as I say in there, that are do good work. And I think that\u2019s not the issue. The issue are these particular movements that have been very influential. And I do get into the little bit on the philosophy of science in the middle of it somewhere. I talk about being \u201cfalsifiable\u201d, because at one point he said that I\u2019ve never acknowledged any evidence that could refute the theory. And I\u2019ve seen other people say that.<\/p>\n<p>But it\u2019s so obvious! The way to refute my theory is simply say that I\u2019m wrong about my historical accounts! It\u2019s like any historian. And, you know, what my books are basically, the basic approach is evolutionary psychology, but within that, quite often, history becomes important. In the culture of critique it\u2019s intellectual history. Basically psychoanalysis, Frankfurt School, and so on.<\/p>\n<p>So if you want to show I\u2019m wrong. All you have to do is say well, you know, psychoanalysis is not a jewish movement! Well Cofnas never even tries to do that! He doesn\u2019t even go there! He makes little, you know, forays here and there. And again, when it comes out, and I\u2019ve always done those with my critics. I go through every last point that they make! I don\u2019t leave anything out! And so that\u2019s why they ended up being very long. I mean, I quoted him, and had to write on it, and sometimes, a lot of times I brought in stuff from the books. So it got very lengthy. But, I don\u2019t like to, you know, think that:<\/p>\n<p>[12:00]<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWell he didn\u2019t answer this he didn\u2019t answer that, you know, he debated this and so on so.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>If I\u2019d written a five-page thing and pointed out a few things, that would be one thing. But I think then I\u2019d be open to that kind of charge. But he made all these claims about \u201ccherry-picking\u201d, and what was the other thing, \u201cmisrepresentation\u201d. Well, I went through every one where that was claimed. And I mean, I\u2019d like to see him do the same, because in my reply I said that he\u2019s misinterpreting, misrepresenting what I\u2019m saying, in a number of places. And in one case I did say it was cherry-picking. So I mean, if he wants to repeat what I said, he\u2019s got a job on his hands. But if he wants to do as thorough a job as I did. And we\u2019ll see if he does that. I don\u2019t know if he. I haven\u2019t heard from him since it since I posted my thing.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Did Cofnas in any way make an intellectual contribution to this discussion?<\/p>\n<p>[13:01]<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well I didn\u2019t feel it did in the end. He didn\u2019t really engage any of the real thesis of the thing. I mean, one of the most heartening things on Saturday, or Sunday, I got an email from a professor I know. A very well-regarded guy, respected in evolutionary psychology. He said he just didn\u2019t engage any of you main points. He didn\u2019t! So even if he was right about all these things he said, it didn\u2019t really threaten any of the major points. I mean, take psychoanalysis. Did he ever show, did he even try to show that these guys didn\u2019t identify as Jews? No! Did he try to show that they didn\u2019t have a sense of jewish interest? No! And that\u2019s the fundamental thing! Did he try to show that they really didn\u2019t have any influence? Well, that\u2019s absurd in the case of psychoanalysis! Very absurd!<\/p>\n<p>[14:00]<\/p>\n<p>So in a way I was heartened by that, because, very heartened by that! And when I looked through this thing, I had to agree. I mean, I hadn\u2019t even read it all yet. But it just doesn\u2019t do anything. Take the chapter on the Left. Well, it doesn\u2019t show that jewish identification, \u2026 he never even raises one example! I\u2019ve got dozens of examples in there! He never gives one example where he says:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWell these guys didn\u2019t really identify as Jews because, you know, X Y &#038; Z.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Well he doesn\u2019t do that! So again, I was feeling that he hadn\u2019t really addressed the point. The points that he did make, were interesting, but they didn\u2019t attack the central thesis, you know. So a lot of it did involve, well, you know, as a misrepresentation you didn\u2019t, you ignored this, or something like that. Okay, I went through that and I think I rebutted it. We will see what happens now.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: So how would one falsify your theory of judaism being a group evolutionary strategy?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well it\u2019s like I said a minute ago. You would show that, \u2026 the basic idea of a group evolutionary strategy is simply a group that is an effective group in terms of natural selection and evolution. And what that would require, is you have to show that they are able to regulate the behavior of the members of the group. And in my first book \u201cPeople That Shall Dwell Alone\u201d is about that. It goes into traditional jewish societies. It doesn\u2019t even get to 20th century, it\u2019s almost all the ancient world and so on, and into the 19th and early 20th century, maybe. But if you look at those communities they were very tightly structured! Okay. So the behavior of jews towards each other were highly regulated!<\/p>\n<p>[16:01]<\/p>\n<p>For example if once you had a business monopoly, a second Jews couldn\u2019t go in there and try to challenge that monopoly. In other words, if it was a fellow jew, they couldn\u2019t do that. So if, for example, a jew failed to pay his taxes, do other things required by the community, well they would punish him. And, you know, in the 19th century in Russia, they had jails in synagogues. And if somebody married a non-jew, well the whole family would be tarnished.<\/p>\n<p>Those are the kinds of things, the kind of sanctions on individual jewish behavior within the community. That is what makes it a group evolutionary strategy, because you\u2019re able to regulate the members of the in-group and prevent cheaters! The problem, you know, the theoretical problem has always been. And that\u2019s how I started out. I do mention that in the rebuttal, in the first couple pages, about how I got to where I am.<\/p>\n<p>[17:02]<\/p>\n<p>Again, a lot of it\u2019s, maybe, in footnotes. But what I say is, that I got the idea of a group evolutionary strategy, I started out I was interested in monogamy. Why is monogamy such a big thing in Western European history? And it\u2019s not the case in so many other cultures. If you look at the Arab world, Africa, China, you don\u2019t see monogamy. And so I ended up seeing that. I noticed that there are a lot of social controls, that people were regulating marriage. The church was regulating marriages.<\/p>\n<p>And then, I wrote a book in 1988 on developmental psychology. But the last chapter I focused on the Spartans. The ancient Greek Spartans. And you see there\u2019s a very engineered society. It was started by a guy named Lyserges who had [18:00] an idea. I mean, he had a program a blueprint for how this should work. And so Spartan kids were brought up to be soldiers. Their whole life was to be a soldier! They were taken away from their families.<\/p>\n<p>They were, so this was all an engineered thing, in the same way jewish communities you have these religious studies. You teach them these things. And everything in child development is very much programmed. And so I went from the Spartans, and I didn\u2019t really then, really focused on the idea this is a contribution to thinking about humans in evolutionary terms. It really hadn\u2019t been done before. And that is to emphasize the group level., because again it was a heresy back in the 1980s. It was just, you know, everything was individual selection. Groups don\u2019t matter. All groups can be analyzed as a bunch of individuals.<\/p>\n<p>I said no! Human groups are different from animals. We can regulate ourselves in a way from external pressures, these [19:00] social controls and ideology. And if you look at the Spartans they would have an ideology that would rationalize the whole thing.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, Judaism have had an ideology of how they rationalize what they did within their communities. But by what they did that within those communities made them effective groups from an evolutionary standpoint, evolutionary selection between groups.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: As jews are now marrying out, well above 50%, does that mean that jews are no longer employing a group evolutionary strategy? Or is it no longer effective? Or is this part of the group evolutionary strategy, marrying non-jews?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yeah well, I think that\u2019s the thing. I mean, the phenomenon of intermarriage is certainly very common in the West now. You could be talking about America and other European based countries. And that\u2019s, because these controls broke down really! I mean, hey, you know, I actually [20:01] should write about that! Yeah, the point is, in traditional society you couldn\u2019t marry anybody you wanted! That was, you know, if you did, your whole family would be screwed! You know, there was just no way to do that!<br \/>\nThose controls broke down in the 19th century. And the jews was, you know, this was called \u201cemancipation\u201d. They left they the jewish ghettos, they went to the universities, they, you know, did all these things. And when they got out in the real world, they started intermarrying. And they sort of lost those intense community ties.<\/p>\n<p>But if you look in Israel you don\u2019t see intermarriage, because they\u2019re pretty much there with other jews. And it\u2019s interesting that in the early 20th century that was the whole point of Zionism. A very major point of Zionism, as it developed in the early 20th century, was to prevent assimilation and to prevent intermarriage! They could see this happening already in Germany. And they [21:01] they were thinking that this is the end of Judaism. And you still see that. A lot of jewish activists like, say Alan Dershowitz, they are very concerned that in the long run there won\u2019t be any jews, or there won\u2019t be any sort of ethnic jews. It\u2019s going to change that dramatically.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Is there a certain rate of intermarriage that would invalidate your theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy? I mean, if it goes north of 60 percent, if it goes north of 70 percent?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yeah I think it\u2019s interesting, the fact is that what I\u2019ve done, you know. The first book was on traditional societies and most of the second book was really. The third book [\u201cThe Culture of Critique\u201d] is on really, almost all of it is really on secular Jews, who are not that attached to the jewish community. But they do identify as Jews. And they have a sense of belonging to a jewish community. But it\u2019s not like it was. And in a way what you have to hesitate to say is that Diaspora Judaism in America is a group evolutionary strategy.<\/p>\n<p>I almost hestitate to call it that. I would call it that in traditional societies for sure! That\u2019s the whole point of the first book. And you might even say that in Israel, because they, you know, it\u2019s an ethno-state. But, and in America, certainly there are vestiges of that. But the point of \u201cThe Culture of Critique\u201d is that it\u2019s almost like I get out of that framework. And the most important thing is how do these jews, how are they influencing culture?<\/p>\n<p>And the fact is, even though they may be intermarried, and maybe they\u2019re not like, Theodor Adorno was only half jewish, I think. And yeah he was very strongly [23:01] identified as a jew. And so he participated his intellectual movements that I covered. So, was he part of a group evolutionary strategy? Well, I suppose he is. What I\u2019d have to say is that the ones who are participating in the group evolutionary strategy are the strongly identified jews who are actively trying to promote jewish interests as they see them. Of course, there are going to be disputes among them as to what jewish interests are.<\/p>\n<p>So I would say that Freud was part of a group evolutionary strategy in the sense that, you know, and intellectuals today. If you look at, say the American, the ADL, say. Someone like Stephen Greenblatt, Abe Foxman. Those guys are strongly identified jews, they are doing what they see as advancing jewish interests. At some point [24:00] and another point I think I do make somewhere in the reply, is that if you look at the leadership of the Jewish community, it\u2019s still ethnically jewish. I mean, you look at something like Greenblatt. He\u2019s got two jewish parents, four jewish grandparents all the way back. Abe Foxman. I don\u2019t know of any real leadership position here that\u2019s held by people who are intermarried and so on.<\/p>\n<p>But, in any case, I mean, it\u2019s certainly the case that there\u2019s a lot of intermarriage. But even that, a lot of the children of these people do strong identify as Jews, and a lot don\u2019t. And so a lot of them are going to fall by the wayside. They\u2019re not going to be jewish anymore. So, you know, your mom\u2019s jewish and your dad isn\u2019t, then so then you marry a non jew, pretty soon, it\u2019s not going to be there anymore. And your probably not even gonna be welcome in the jewish community.<\/p>\n<p>But at some point it\u2019s gonna dissipate and end really did you got a jewish great-great-great grandparent, so what?<\/p>\n<p>[25:02]<\/p>\n<p>Ford: So let\u2019s just say for discussions sake, just to push you on this point. If jewish out marriage rates in the United States climb above 70%, it would be then fair to say that, most jews in the United States and not following a group evolutionary strategy?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yeah i\u2019d probably say most of them are not, but you\u2019d have to interview them and see what they\u2019re up to. You know, I mean, part of it would just be, you know, how strongly do you identify as a Jews? You know, do you, are you active in jewish organizations? Do you like, \u2026, because after all there are two elements of the whole thing. One is genetics, and one is culture. Now for centuries the culture and the genetics were sort of tied together completely! , but that\u2019s not the case so much anymore. But you could have a person who\u2019s a quarter jewish, or [26:01] something like that, and he strongly identifies as a Jews. But I think most of those people will not, and they will their children will not marry a Jews. And so they\u2019re sort of dropping out of the whole thing.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: So, I mean, your theory of Judaism is a group evolutionary strategy does not have to apply it to every single jewish community, like, \u2026<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Oh no! Not at all.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Much better than other jewish communities. For plenty of jewish communities it\u2019s not going to be a useful tool of analysis. Like you said a jewish community with an 80% intermarriage rate, it\u2019s not really a useful tool for that sort of community. Is that fair?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yeah I mean, 80 percent, yeah, even 60% you\u2019ve got an awful lot of people who don\u2019t identify much anymore. And they\u2019re gonna fall out. And that\u2019s a concern that jewish activists. I know that. I mean, when I wrote the book and it\u2019s interesting, because in 1998 I wrote two books. And they both dealt with that issue that in the last chapter of each of those books.<\/p>\n<p>[27:01]<\/p>\n<p>And at that time there was a lot of writing within the jewish community, in the jewish press. Condemning intermarriage and trying to shore it up. And trying to prevent it., because all the studies started coming out, you know, 30, 40, or 50 percent, you know, at that time 50 percent was, I think, was what people were saying. And then people could hardly believe it. But there\u2019s a real backlash against that attempt to shore it up. Well I guess it failed! It\u2019s gotten worse.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Okay. So there\u2019s a guy in the chatroom who lives in Europe, I don\u2019t believe he\u2019s jewish, but his boss is jewish. And his boss just looks very askance at Zionism.<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>[28:00]<\/p>\n<p>Ford: So in the modern world like after the \u201cHolocaust\u201d we\u2019ve now had a jewish state for approximately 60 plus, 70 years. In this modern world if you have a jewish community where they are opposed to the existence of an ethno-jewish state, you know, currently known as Israel, and then, and that\u2019s widespread, let\u2019s say it\u2019s like 60% of the community, just to use that figure from intermarriage. Does that then challenge the usefulness of the tool of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, when you have a majority of a jewish community are opposed to the jewish state.<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well in the reply I talked about there is a jewish Orthodox, jewish sect that does not accept Israel. Yet they strong identify as jews. It does exist! And there are certainly critics of Israel. One of the points I make in the reply, is that critics of Israel are getting more and more common among jews. I mean, one of the websites I read every day is Mondowiess. A great website! And they\u2019re very critical of Zionism as it exists in Israel now. And these guys are strongly identified as Jews. Phillip Wiess is time.<\/p>\n<p>[29:01]<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Editor and he\u2019s talks about that. And I think he wants to feel part of the jewish community. But at the same time, he\u2019s a sort of liberal lefty kind of guy. Who can\u2019t stand with what he\u2019s seeing over there. And so he\u2019s very critical. And he probably thinks in the long run, this is not a good strategy for jews. To have a state that\u2019s doing, you know, the ethnic cleansing, they\u2019re taking over the West Bank, they\u2019re seizing more and more land, and annexing, and so on.<\/p>\n<p>And those are the things that are giving Israel a sort of pariah status in the world now! Well if you\u2019re jewish, you gotta say, well either you\u2019re gonna say, well that\u2019s fine, you know. But a lot of jews I think are sort of clenching their teeth and they\u2019re saying, you know:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAre we doing the right thing here?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>[30:00]<\/p>\n<p>But again, another point I make though, I think in Israel, within Israel, the fanatics are in charge! And I made that point in response to the review by the \u201cIsrael Lobby\u201d the book by Mearsheimer and Walt., because their point, they wanted, they are very critical of Israel and how it\u2019s influenced our foreign policy. And they\u2019re very critical about what Israel\u2019s done to the Palestinians. So what they say is for Israel\u2019s own good they should shape up! And they should stop all this stuff! And, you know, become a sort of regular state. But I don\u2019t see that happening.<\/p>\n<p>And what I see is that people like Natalie Bennett is talking about, you know, succeeding Netanyahu. Well, he\u2019s a leader of the secular movement. I think that it\u2019s just going to get more [31:02] intense as time goes on. I mean, the people having the children over in Israel tend to be the more orthodox. This is the case in this country.<\/p>\n<p>Where in Israel they are coming to a majority there if not already. I don\u2019t think a sort of, you know, the people who started Israel, the so-called labor Zionist, they were very much liberal on the Left and all that and even though, they were aggressive and so on. It\u2019s gotten more intense over the years, obviously, beginning with the Begin government back in 1970. So yeah, I think Israel is getting more extreme. I think it\u2019s going to keep going that way.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: A jewish reader of yours, writes in the chat room:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf individualism are key to Western beauty and greatness, how can this be retained with ethnic cohesion?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well yeah, it is a very good question. What I would hope is that we could have a period where we would sort of give up [32:00] our individualism, re-establish ourselves, get back on our feet, and then reestablish individualism afterwards. We\u2019re gonna need some cohesion here for a while. We\u2019re going to need some sense of the mission that we have to right things in Europe, and America, Australia, New Zealand, and other places.<\/p>\n<p>So I think that\u2019s gonna require more of a collective mentality. And, you know, I\u2019m a northern European. I\u2019m quite individualist, but at the same time I understand the need to sort of submerge myself in a movement! I realized I\u2019m not going to necessarily approve of everything everybody does. I have to look at a lot of different alternatives. But the point is that I\u2019m going to join a more collective society, submerge my individualism a little bit, in order for the greater good.<\/p>\n<p>[33:01]<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Right. So if jews are prominently represented on both the hereditarian race realist side, you\u2019ve had a lot of jews speaking at American Renaissance, as well as being prominently represented on the opposite, the egalitarian side. What explanatory power does your theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy have, if you have prominent jews, and in numbers, on both sides of the debate such as the hereditarian versus the egalitarian perspective on racial IQ differences?<\/p>\n<p>Oh! What happened? I lost Kevin MacDonald! Doggone it! Let me throw in an invite back so. Sorry!<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Sorry I looked at the thing and it said iI was off and now I realized it wasn\u2019t. Anyway, the answer to your question is, and this came up, you know, in my reply. The question isn\u2019t a matter of counting heads. The question is who\u2019s been influential? And so in chapter two I talk about that, and the point is that the anti-hereditarian have in a very real sense won that day. And the reason they won it is, because of jewish activism.<\/p>\n<p>And the prime example is Stephen Jay Gould. I mean, and I give a lot of attention to him in that chapter. He\u2019s been enormously influential. Harvard professor, you know, he also wrote a lot in [35:00] the popular press. He had a column at Natural History. He became like a superstar, an academic superstar! I saw him talk once, and he was a brilliant speaker! You know, he gave a slide show, he had three screens going, he was very flamboyant and talked with absolute confidence! I\u2019ll never forget it, I\u2019ll never forget!<\/p>\n<p>He said right towards the end, and he\u2019s talking about the human brain, or something. He said:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhat could be more obvious and that the human brain, our ideas and everything, our brain itself is not under natural selection!\u201d<\/p>\n<p>And I just, you know, I\u2019m sitting there in the audience, and I\u2019m saying:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAre you kidding me?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But he said it was such a aplomb! You know, in a roomful of academics and they\u2019re all cheering wildly! I mean, it was like this guy was very, very, effective! So again, it\u2019s the same way with it with Israel! I mean, there are [36:00] a lot of jews now who are criticizing Israel, but who\u2019s important? AIPAC is important! The Sheldon Adelson is important! Haim Sabin is important! You know, there that\u2019s where the money comes from. And if you should cross AIPAC, you know, if you cross AIPAC you\u2019re gonna be in trouble if your politician. So even if you find a substantial percentage of jews are critical of Israel, or something like that, it may not mean a darn thing! You see what I mean?<\/p>\n<p>You can have people like Nancy Siegel and Richard Herstein, the co-author of \u201cThe Bell Curve\u201d. Great scientists! But what happened to \u201cThe Bell Curve\u201d? Nothing! Yeah, I mean, aft 20 years, you know, that\u2019s been around since 1994! And it was a huge blow up at the time, but has \u201cThe Bell Curve\u201d influenced public policy at all? Has \u201cThe Bell Curve\u201d [37:02] influenced? Charles Murray would be the first to admit this! Herstein had a dialogue on this, a long time ago, around 1994.<\/p>\n<p>So the point is, not how many jews are in which way, whatever movement, the question is who won and why! And so that\u2019s what you have to look at in all these cases, really.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: A question from the chat:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhat do you think about Jared Taylor including Ashkenazim as White?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well I\u2019m not sure. You know, in a way Ashkenazim are White. I mean, there\u2019s a certain substantial European admixture there. Maybe 40 percent, overall. But, you know, if it goes up one 1% a year a generation, over forty generations you\u2019re talking about that. And so there is a substantial admixture. An awful lot of Ashkenazi jews certainly look European. I think of someone [38:01] like Jon Stewart. I mean, he doesn\u2019t look jewish at all to me. So there are these genetic reasons why you might say that, but what I\u2019ve always said is two things, two points I\u2019d like to make.<\/p>\n<p>One point is, I think that Jared Taylor may see this is a tactical issue, more than anything else. He realizes that Jews are powerful and I think he wants to have a movement trying to recruit White America basically and get ourselves back on our feet. And one way to do that, maybe, is to get Jews on our side. And I don\u2019t disagree with that. I think more power to him! If he wins, hey, I\u2019d say:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cJared you won! Congratulations! You had the best strategy!\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But the other thing is that besides genetics there\u2019s also identity. And the fact is that most [39:02] jews, you know, the jewish education is geared to seeing jews as a victimized group historically, as a persecuted group. Christianity as a persecuting force, and again I was thinking of Ford, because Ford came up in the reply and, you know, where he talked about the persecuting Catholic Church and seeing the Catholic churches as their enemy. Well, you\u2019re seeing an essential Western institution as an enemy.<\/p>\n<p>And, of course, the reason for that is during the Middle Ages some of the Pope\u2019s, not all popes, but some of the Popes were very anti-jewish. You had this in the Spanish Inquisition which had strong religious overtones. You had these Crusaders in the Middle Ages killing jews on the way the Holy Land. So into the present really.<\/p>\n<p>[40:00]<\/p>\n<p>So there is that, there. But what that means is a lot of jews do not identify with Western culture. Even if they are, you know, maybe if they are 60 percent European. Some of them probably are, some of them probably much less. But they psychologically they don\u2019t identify with it. So it\u2019s not just genetics, it\u2019s identity. How you think of yourself.<\/p>\n<p>And the fact is, these jews who were involved in these jewish intellectual movements I talked about, were strongly identified as jews. And so that\u2019s the critical thing is jewish identity for them. And that\u2019s where I had to show it in each of those books.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Now, in your chapter on the Frankfurt School, you said that these jewish intellectuals strongly identified as jews. But I believed the only evidence you brought to support that was that they cared about the \u201cHolocaust\u201d. Now you don\u2019t have to strongly identify as a jew to care about the \u201cHolocaust\u201d. So, on what basis do you say that the Frankfurt School intellectuals strongly identified as jews?<\/p>\n<p>[41:01]<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Why I have to look over my old chapter again [chuckling]. It is more than that! Belive me. I mean, there was some examples of that.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Okay.<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: I mean, Horkheimer especially. Look at his writings, especially as he got older, very strongly. And you look at the book like \u201cDialect of the xxx\u201d. I spend a lot of time on that in the reply. I mean, it is such, so obviously an apologetic. You know, it\u2019s an attempt to say basically that, an attempt to account for anti-semitism, but in the most convoluted, weird way!<\/p>\n<p>Where the actual behavior of jews in this historical time doesn\u2019t matter. It\u2019s not like they ever went into something that happened in the 16th century, or the Inquisition, or something, and tried to see what was going on [42:00] the other side. Instead it was a psychoanalytic. It was just crazy! And that can only happen if you are strongly motivated to vindicate jewish history. And to exculpate any kind of blame for it.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Yeah. It seems though that the Frankfurt School did push the same kind of multicultural agenda both on jews and non-jews. It\u2019s not like they were pushing cohesion, unity, and exclusion for jews, and then the opposite for non-jews. They were, by and large, pushing the same recipe on both jews and non-jews. Would you agree with that?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well! Were they pushing it on non-jews? I had sections, let me look at my reply, because they did come up in this whole discussion. Let me see if I can find it. Well at a basic level you had Frankfurt School funded by the American jewish Committee. It\u2019s hard to believe that they had no jewish identification. It\u2019s hard to believe they didn\u2019t care about Jewish continuity. That\u2019s certainly what the American jewish Committee was all about. I have a long section, I\u2019d like to be able to see it, in order to really answer this here, in my reply.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: What chapter is that in \u201cThe Culture of Critique?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Chapter five, yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Chapter five, okay. Let\u2019s scroll down to, because you do your rebuttal basically chapter by chapter, so that makes it a lot to, \u2026<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well almost, he went out-of-order. He\u2019d put three after five. Okay, let\u2019s look at the Frankfurt School.<\/p>\n<p>[44:00]<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Here, just while you while you\u2019re scanning that, to see what you want to highlight, I just want to bring to attention Nathan\u2019s response to your rebuttal. So Nathan shared with me a draft of his response. He still needs to do more work on it, and he gave me permission to quote from it, but not to share it. So that\u2019s, you know, those of the ground rules that I\u2019m dealing with. And this is Nathan. He\u2019s saying:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat members of the Frankfurt School had a strong reaction to the \u201cHolocaust\u201d, which is hardly surprising, does not mean that they strongly identified as jews, or supported jewish ethnocentrism.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Is this a reply to what I wrote now?<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Yeah, yeah he hasn\u2019t published this as yet, so if you feel that I\u2019m engaging in dirty pool, I won\u2019t, \u2026<\/p>\n<p>[45:02]<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: No. Again, I would like to see what, \u2026 I\u2019m scrolling through my own reply here now. Okay I said I do not assume they approve of this behavior simply, because they were jewish. The first part, a strong identification of the jewish principal figures and the group\u2019s most influential work. \u201cThe Authoritarian Personality\u201d. Max Horkheimer says \u201cthe goal of philosophy is to vindicate jewish history.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Well, what do you think that means! I mean, that is strong Jewish identification! This is more than simply concern about the \u201cHolocaust\u201d, for heaven\u2019s sake! Take Adorno, much of Adorno\u2019s later work may be viewed as reaction to the \u201cHolocaust\u201d [46:02]. But that\u2019s Adorno, I suppose. But he seems to be obsessed with that. But again, he also participated in writing \u201cDialectic of the Enlightenment\u201d. He\u2019s working on a book funded by the American jewish committee, all about anti-Semitism. So I take that as evidence of a strong jewish identity, absolutely!<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Okay. Let me read two sentences from your rebuttal, and two sentences from Cofnas\u2019 rebuttal of your rebuttal. And just go from there. So Kevin writes:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere are really two possibilities here about the Frankfurt school. They realized it was a double standard, but didn\u2019t want to publicize that, for the obvious reason that they would be seen as hypocrites. Or, they were deceiving themselves by simply focusing on White ethnocentrism as pathological, while blocking out any thought about how this presents an intellectual inconsistency i.e., self-deception.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>[47:01]<\/p>\n<p>Now this is Nathan\u2019s response:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere is a third possibility. Members of the Frankfurt School opposed ethnocentrism for both jews and Gentiles alike. This third possibility seems especially plausible given that MacDonald has no positive evidence for the first two possibilities, besides the fact that the \u201cHolocaust\u201d loomed large for the Franklin School, which is irrelevant.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: But that is a total gloss on what I\u2019m saying! Good heavens! I mean, I just read you about Max Horkheimer, you know, and the fact that the whole thing is concerned, that the \u201cAuthoritarian Personality\u201d is so obsessed with anti-semitism. So to me that\u2019s obvious that they are strongly identified as jews. I just can\u2019t even imagine that they aren\u2019t.<\/p>\n<p>[48:02]<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Yeah. When you said that they\u2019re obsessed with anti-semitism, is it possible that they were equally obsessed with anti-racism?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well they certainly are concerned about racism, as they had the ethnocentrism scale, it doesn\u2019t explicitly mention jews. And that is interesting. I think that in general jews have seen a strong correlation, which is the case. And I think it\u2019s a basic idea of the \u201cAuthoritarian Personality\u201d is that if you don\u2019t like blacks tb you probably won\u2019t like jews. And so they go together.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: But it\u2019s also, is it also possible that they cared as much about blacks as they cared about Jews?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well, they might have, but, you know, again they\u2019re doing this in my opinion, and I don\u2019t see anything to rebut that, they\u2019re doing this, because they see, because [49:02] of their jewish identity. And they may well feel strongly about blacks, or something like that, but I do think that they, \u2026 and I do think that, some more stuff. The idea that they see a jewish future. They don\u2019t think that the jews are going to stop. That jewish ethnocentrism, and really what it takes is jewish identity, to maintain a jewish future, I don\u2019t think they\u2018re not opposed to that. And, you know, the group continuity. Well what else is it really? That\u2019s really what it amounts to among jews.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: From an Orthodox perspective the Frankfurt School jews are a bunch of jewish goyim who eat bacon and, you know, we feel nothing in common with them. And, you know, we basically loathe them! How does how does Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, you know, analyze the other repugnance that Orthodox jews feel for jews like the Frankfurt School?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well, yeah. I mean, there again there are divergences within the jewish community. There always had been, there always will be.<\/p>\n<p>What you have to do is look at were the influence lies. These Orthodox jews did not do anything about the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School were very influential. And so that\u2019s all I\u2019m trying to do in \u201cCulture of Critique\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>To show that these movements were created by strongly identified jews, and they were successful. Now the fact that some jews didn\u2019t like that, or don\u2019t like Frankfurt school, or people that eat bacon, or something like that, it\u2019s irrelevant to that, really.<\/p>\n<p>[51:02]<\/p>\n<p>Ford: So you mentioned in the paper that you\u2019re not going to respond to Nathan\u2019s ad hominem attacks. And I just want to read a few sentences here from Nathan. He says:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI never made any ad hominem attacks against Kevin MacDonald. My paper does not call him, or his theory anti-semitic, nor does it attribute nefarious motivations to him. However in this reply, it is MacDonald who makes an ad hominem attack against me. He suggests, \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Where\u2019s that?<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Okay:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cHe suggests that I am motivated to criticize him, because of my jewish ethnicity. As Kevin says, one suspects that Cofnas had a foregone conclusion about \u201cCulture of Critique\u2019s\u201d value. What psychologists term \u201cmotivated cognition\u201d which as I attempt to demonstrate was characteristic of the jewish intellectuals reviewing \u201cCulture of Critique\u201d like the hyper purist discussed in several places in \u201cCulture of Critique\u201d he was looking for ways to condemn research he didn\u2019t like of deeper reason.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>[52:01]<br \/>\nSo were you were you arguing here in your rebuttal that Cofnas was motivated to criticize you and denounce you, because Cofnas is jewish?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well, yeah, I mean, I you want to call that \u201cad hominem\u201d. What I\u2019m saying is that I think it\u2019s motivated, I think it\u2019s strongly motivated. What I resented was him calling me incompetent. What I resented was saying I was full of misrepresentations. False! That I was cherry-picking right and left. False! I mean, he was saying all kind of things that we\u2019re just really disrespectful! And just trying to make me out to be some kind of an idiot! And I just really resented the tone of this thing, to tell you the truth!<\/p>\n<p>I had one sentence at the end where I where I suggested that he\u2019s motivated by his ethnicity, which is the case. I suggested, I didn\u2019t, you know, say [53:02] it was some kind of a knockdown argument, obviously. But he did not engage any of the basic ideas. Come on! What are you doing? And he thinks he\u2019s refuted me? Come on, it\u2019s ridiculous!<\/p>\n<p>Ford: You knew \u201cThe Culture of Critique\u201d was incendiary, so what sort of reaction did you expect of the book?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well I didn\u2019t know. I thought that maybe I would get condemned, or get bad reviews, or something. But what was interesting was, nothing happened. And so I think Cofnas mentioned Frank Salter\u2019s review, and that was about it. And yeah, so obviously it was quite different with the first two books, especially the first book. It got positive reviews and everything. I mean, it was a surprise. I didn\u2019t know quite what to expect but then it pretty obvious there was going to be silence.<\/p>\n<p>[54:00]<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Yeah. Now you write in your rebuttal:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI began to see myself as having a dog in this fight\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Once you worked on your immigration chapter of \u201cThe Culture of Critique\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Ford:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cand what was happening was from an evolutionary perspective, a disaster of the White people of the West! Ethnic displacement is like reducing an extended family, or other lineages. It is a drastic loss of fitness as Frank Salter has shown. Really no different from displacement of one subspecies, or species, \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: That is just a typo there.<\/p>\n<p>Ford:<\/p>\n<p>\u201c\u2026 this is natural selection in action, though it\u2019s hard to call the process natural, because it\u2019s a consciously engineered process\u201d<\/p>\n<p>So this is Nathan\u2019s response:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cLater in this reply MacDonald argues that some jews, such as Alan Dershowitz, support multiracial immigration to [55:02] advance jewish interests as they understand them. But here he acknowledges the obvious point that multiracial immigration to a country which he equates with ethnic displacement, opposes the ethnic interest of the majority inhabitants of the country.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>So were you inconsistent here?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: What do you mean? How my interests are what?<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Okay, so in your rebuttal you make the point that ethnic displacement is reducing, is like reducing an extended family.<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yes.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Okay. So when Alan Dershowitz supports multiracial immigration to Israel, to advance jewish interests, as he understands that. This multiracial immigration is the same sort of ethnic displacement that you would decrying in the West.<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well, yeah absolutely! And the response to that is simply again, there are differences of opinion [56:01] among jews! You have to look at where the power is! And Alan Dershowitz does not have any power over Israeli immigration policy, pretty obviously! Because right now Israel is expelling Africans right and left. And they are very strong, you know, restrictions on who can come into Israel. So, I don\u2019t care.<\/p>\n<p>You know, there are a lot of reasons why Alan Dershowitz might have those opinions. And I mentioned that in my reply. He may think that, well it\u2019s good PR, you know, that Israel still depends on the West, we can\u2019t have this image of being racist. We can\u2019t have this image that Judaism is all about genetics. And he might even think that it\u2019s, you know, crazy in the long run! All right, and the other thing he may well think, well 2% is no big deal! I mentioned that. So I don\u2019t know what his motives are, but it doesn\u2019t matter!<\/p>\n<p>[57:01]<\/p>\n<p>The point is that Israeli policy is to create and maintain and ethno-state and they are succeeding at that! Admitting 2% of Ethiopians, or something like that, it\u2019s not going to change that. And as also said, the Ethiopians are on the fringes of society over there. They are not being integrated. A lot of Israelis hate that. And some religious authorities think they\u2019re not even really jewish. Well it\u2019s not exactly a warm welcome!<\/p>\n<p>And, you know, again what matters is where the power is! Not, you know, counting heads, like even famous heads like, Chomsky, or Dershowitz, or something like that, to see where the power is. It\u2019s empirical, you know. It\u2019s not like I [58:01] have a theory of what all jews do every time! You know, the theory is descriptive, to see where the power is. Whether it\u2019s an influential intellectual movement like psychoanalysis, or the Frankfurt School, or Israeli immigration policy, or jewish influence on immigration policy in America. That\u2019s all I\u2019m trying to do! Yeah I don\u2019t get that the thrust of that argument at all.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Okay, so I believe that Nathan will publish his rebuttal later this week, but gave me an advance look at a draft,<\/p>\n<p>So you Kevin write:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI see the jewish community as having important diversity of viewpoint.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: And Nathan says:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAny reasonable interpretation of MacDonald would clearly put limits on the diversity of viewpoint that we would expect to find among jewish ethnic activists. When jews are over-represented among the leadership of [59:01] violently opposing movement, for example, the pro-Israel lobby versus Boycott Divest Sanction movement, opponents versus advocates of free speech, this does not fit in any obvious way with MacDonald\u2019s theory.<\/p>\n<p>Should we expect Jews to cluster around those movements that actually advance their group interests? MacDonald claims that jews disagree about how to advance their common ethnic interests and this is why they are often the leaders both of movements and the movements opposition.<\/p>\n<p>This implies that a large percentage of jews not only fail to determine what is in their best interests, but are actively working against those interests by opposing the movement that would actually advanced them. Isn\u2019t jewish over-representation in opposing movements evidence in favor of the default hypothesis?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: No! It\u2019s not! Again, as I said, a minute ago, what we\u2019re looking at is where the power is!<\/p>\n<p>[60:00]<\/p>\n<p>Jews have different opinions about where, what to do, and so on, and for all I know, you know, at some point the BDS movement may win. But the point is it\u2019s a jewish, if you are correct. I mean, my impression is there may be jewish leadership, but a lot of it\u2019s Palestinian and other people who are really sort of carrying the weight. But in any case, say it is a jewish movement, and you\u2019ve got opposing jewish movements. Fine! And you\u2019ve got opposing jewish religious movements in a sense, you know, their different views and things.<\/p>\n<p>But if you\u2019re looking at say something like American immigration policy, or our policy towards Israel. Does it matter that you\u2019ve got a BDS movement? If the BDS movement can\u2019t influence American foreign policy in the least? Not at all! Doesn\u2019t matter! And they may succeed at some point, so this is gonna change.<\/p>\n<p>[61:01]<\/p>\n<p>That\u2019s why I say, this is not a predictive theory. I can\u2019t predict where this is going to go. The BDS movement may get powerful enough to sway American companies to change their attitude, and then you have these elites in the United States really pressuring the government to, you know, stop supporting Israel so much. We\u2019ll see what happens! Who knows what will happen? It\u2019s up in the air.<\/p>\n<p>But the point is that you have to look at these movements, see where the power is, and ask yourself is it a jewish movement? Are they advancing their version of jewish interests? Who\u2019s winning and who\u2019s losing? So it\u2019s the same thing with immigration policy. You could, you can find jews who are opposed to immigration, open immigration, certainly.<\/p>\n<p>And I talk about Stephen Steinlight in my and my response. He\u2019s a lone figure and it\u2019s hard to fight any a significant [62:00] jewish group. I can\u2019t think of it. There there are none! But there are few jews who are opposed to open border kind of immigration. Larry Auster was very effective! And at the end of his life, you know, he talked about how jews were so central to the whole thing. To the movement for open borders.<\/p>\n<p>So you have these individual jews and maybe even at some point, I guess FAIR the American, the organization called FAIR. It\u2019s an acronym for immigration reform Federation for American Immigration Reform, or something. At the head of that is a guy named Stein. Okay, that\u2019s nice. But FAIR is not a jewish intellectual movement! [chuckling] it\u2019s headed by a jew and he\u2019s not even typical of the jewish community by any means.<\/p>\n<p>[63:00]<\/p>\n<p>So we\u2019ll see! At some point, you know, I know I also made a note of that. Jews had to make change on immigration. In the UK I can certainly understand why they would. You got someone like Pamela Geller, you know, she can\u2019t stand Muslims! And, you know, the reason is because, you know, she\u2019s very strong identified jew. She does not want Muslims in these European countries! She thinks it\u2019s a disaster for Jews. And I think she\u2019s probably right. And what you see in the UK is that Muslims are getting more and more power, you know, especially with the Labour Party. They have been called anti-semitic, and this and that and everything else. But the reason is, because Muslims are a significant force now for labor.<\/p>\n<p>What you see is sort of like in America where the Labor Party is losing the support of White Britons. They are going for the Conservative Party, and the Labour Party is getting more non-White. So Jeremy Corbyn is very anti-Israel, or at least very critical of Israel. I don\u2019t know his exact position. But we\u2019ll see what happens. We have to see who is good at winning and then is this a jewish movement and are they successful?<\/p>\n<p>Ford: I\u2019m probably repeating myself here, but I\u2019m gonna risk looking stupid. You said that your theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy does not have predictive power, or value then what is the value if it isn\u2019t if it doesn\u2019t help, you know, either predict the future, or to better understand patterns in the past?<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well I think we better understand things, absolutely! I mean, you talk about the default hypothesis. Well it\u2019s a vast improvement on the default hypothesis if you can show that these movements were fundamentally motivated by jewish interests and jewish identity. And that\u2019s a fundamental advance over the default hypothesis.<\/p>\n<p>[65:00]<\/p>\n<p>But it\u2019s not predictive. How could it be? I mean, I talk about that explicitly in the article. I say so sort of like predicting the weather in Los Angeles in ten years on September 9th! You know, I mean, that\u2019s ridiculous! They can\u2019t do that, but that doesn\u2019t mean there isn\u2019t a weather science. And so when you describe things and try to understand how they happen, that\u2019s all historians ever try to do, I\u2019m embedding mine ultimately in evolutionary psychology, of evolutionary biology.<\/p>\n<p>So it\u2019s a little different from standard history. But historians don\u2019t really try to predict the future. They try to explain the past. What causes what, and I\u2019m happy to just say leave it at that. That\u2019s enough of an accomplishment.<\/p>\n<p>I can\u2019t keep going for too much longer, because my wife, \u2026<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Okay! Okay. So I\u2019ll tell you what, I\u2019ll just read a final point by Nathan.<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: And you can say \u201cI\u2019ve already answered that\u201d, whatever.<\/p>\n<p>So you wrote:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cJewish support for any particular idea, or cause will be sensitive to each generations perceived interest, given changing circumstances. Cofnas has a static ahistorical conception of jewish interests.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>And Nathan responds:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe examples of jewish disagreement that I give are not comparing jews in different historical periods, but comparing jews in the same periods. We cannot explain these disagreements by appealing to the fact that historical circumstances change and call for different strategies.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Well there are several times in his review that he acts as if Zionism is sort of an essential. You know, that Jewish strategy is essential to being jewish. That\u2019s ridiculous!<\/p>\n<p>[67:01]<\/p>\n<p>I mean, his criticism on Freud, he says something like, what was it, he said Freud in 1929, there was a riot in Jerusalem, and Freud would not sign a petition, or something like that. They just sort of put it on the Arabs. And so that meant that Freud was not much of an ethnic activist, or you didn\u2019t care about jewish interests.<\/p>\n<p>But again not all people, especially 1929, would have seen it that way. And even if you\u2019re a Zionist, someone like Philip Weiss is a Zionist, in a way. He\u2019s critical of Israel but he\u2019s not like he\u2019s he wants Israel to stop being Israel! He wants it to soften. And Freud may have been the same way.<\/p>\n<p>As I said, about Freud motives, well he may have thought that, you know, you talked about the fanaticism of our people. Well sometimes yeah you can blame [68:02] your own people for getting out of control a little bit. It\u2019s a bad strategy! You know, Zionists have pursued a lot of different strategies in the early years, and still does.<\/p>\n<p>And you don\u2019t have to agree with all of them. And maybe they thought that what happened there in Jerusalem was part of the jews fault, and that we shouldn\u2019t do that. So he\u2019s not going to sign this petition. Doesn\u2019t mean he\u2019s not a Zionist. It certainly doesn\u2019t mean he doesn\u2019t have a strong jewish identity, a sense of jewish interest. But he\u2019s got his own interpretation!<\/p>\n<p>Again, you have to see where the power is! Where the influence is! Where, who\u2019s running the show! I when it comes to influencing US foreign policy it\u2019s AIPAC. It\u2019s neocon! It\u2019s sympathetic jews like Haim Sabin for the Democratic Party. They\u2019re the ones that are pulling the weight, and they\u2019re strong identified as Jews. They have a strong sense of what Israeli interests are. And jewish interests [69:01] are supporting Israel. They\u2019re right now in the driver\u2019s seat, aren\u2019t they? Well, then that may change. And I can\u2019t predict the future.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Well okay. Thank you Kevin! I hope you feel that I treated you fairly. I mean, we\u2019ve done a lot, \u2026<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Yeah I didn\u2019t expect this, but it\u2019s really good to get it out.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Okay, thank you so much for your time Kevin. I really appreciate it.<\/p>\n<p>MacDonald: Thank you, I enjoyed it myself. Thank you.<\/p>\n<p>Ford: Okay. Take care. Bye bye. So that was Kevin MacDonald the retired psychology professor and author of \u201cThe Culture of Critique\u201d series, a jewish trilogy did and we\u2019re dealing with the Nathan Cofnas critique of the Kevin MacDonald book, \u201cThe Culture of Critique\u201d. And I invited Nathan Cofnas to come on the show, after checking with Kevin MacDonald. And Kevin MacDonald was absolutely fine with me inviting Nathan Cofnas on the show. But due to the time zone that Nathan Cofnas is in right now, this just did not work for him.<\/p>\n<p>But Nathan did share with me a draft of his rebuttal to Kevin MacDonald\u2019s rebuttal. And I\u2019m not allowed to share this draft, but I am allowed to quote from it. So I\u2019m gonna read a little of Kevin MacDonald and then I\u2019m gonna read from Nathan Cofnas\u2019 critique. And obviously I am a convert to Orthodox Judaism. I have a dog in this fight. I prefer positive explanations of jewish history and jewish behavior rather than negative ones.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>My Jewish friend R. reads <a href=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/323881702_REPLY_TO_NATHAN_COFNAS\">Kevin MacDonald&#8217;s response to Nathan Cofnas<\/a> and makes these notes: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Page 1<br \/>\n\u201cMy book was incendiary, and I knew that.\u201d Shows awareness for the situation<br \/>\nR: Draws a sympathetic character, honestly speaks about his troubles<br \/>\nPage 2<br \/>\n\u201cSadly 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.\u201d<br \/>\nR: Sad effect of limiting of speech<br \/>\n\u201cMisguided intellectual movements like psychoanalysis may be successfully rebutted and eventually fall by the wayside\u201d<br \/>\nR: has psychoanalysis been successfully rebutted? Source? Textbook? Maybe in the US. Aren\u2019t there analysts out there doing good work?  I don\u2019t like this whole cloth dismissal of this wing of psychology.  Maybe I am misinformed.<br \/>\n\u201cHowever, the effects of immigration policy are of immediate and critical concern for the entire West.\u201d\u2026<br \/>\n\u201c\u2026immigration 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.\u201d<br \/>\nR:  Goes on to cite Makes a key point that immigration is used to displace indigenous groups, fair point.<br \/>\n\u201cI 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\u201d<br \/>\nR: admits he is no longer objective. Sweet old man honesty. But may not benefit his scholarship.<br \/>\n\u201cI 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\u201307 following a visit by Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center,\u201d<br \/>\nR: Kmac is pouring his guts out here and we have to appreciate his openness and courage.<br \/>\nPage 3<br \/>\n*****\u201cMuch of Cofnas\u2019s critique depends on the claim that I conceive of the Jewish community as monolithic\u201d<br \/>\nR: 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?<br \/>\n*****\u201cHowever, 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.\u201d<br \/>\nThe purpose of the book was to prove that Jews use ideas to undermine gentile society. The name of the book is called \u201cculture of critique\u201d. 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.<br \/>\nYou go farther than just claim Jewish influence, this is a part of a larger group strategy.<br \/>\n******\u201dAs 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\u2019t really have any power or influence), it cannot be falsified by providing individual counterexamples.\u201d<br \/>\nTo go overly autistic, you don\u2019t define what you mean by -Jewish Influence- is one Jew enough? What about half Jewish? More problematic, most of the \u201cJews\u201d involved were assimilated or atheistic. Would sematic be a better definition?<br \/>\nBut being reasonable to his lack of definition &#8211; 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 \u2013 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\u2019s 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?<br \/>\nI 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.<br \/>\nAre 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?<br \/>\nPage 2<br \/>\n*****\u201dCofnas 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 \u201cpuppet\u201d 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) \u2026. But even when participating in such a movement has material rewards, there is no implication that the non-Jews involved don\u2019t sincerely hold their beliefs.<br \/>\nR: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 \u201clet society burn\u201d attitude. I felt his lack of nuance in the motivations of the subjects of this case was ridiculous. You don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n<p>*****\u201cIn general, Jewish support for any particular idea or cause will be sensitive to each generation&#8217;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: \u201cNext year in Jerusalem\u201d). On the contrary, as discussed in several places here, Jewish support for causes like Zionism, radical leftism, or particular governments have a history\u2014a beginning, a middle, and often an end. If it\u2019s one thing that has characterized Jews throughout their history, it\u2019s that they have been what evolutionary biologist Richard Alexander termed \u201cflexible strategizers.\u201d 5 There is no reason to suppose that will not continue in the future.<\/p>\n<p>R: Very weak. On the surface, Kmac makes a contextual argument &#8211; what is in the best interest in the Jews at the movement \u2013 is what the Jews will support.<br \/>\n First, this makes the argument that Jews only support what is in their interest \u2013 thus are amoral. There is no evidence to support the theory that Jews are amoral, in fact being left \u2013 as we will show bellow can be very counter the interests of Jews (high taxes for social welfare, anti \u2013 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.<br \/>\nSecond, if taken literally Kmac presents a taxonomy of Jewish group differences \u2013 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.<br \/>\nThird, Kmac\u2019s 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<br \/>\nFourth, in order to believe that Jews opposed Israel, and would abandon Israel as the context demands, &#8211; may show a self or local community interest &#8211; not just what is overall best for Jewry. Which runs counter to Kmac\u2019s 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\u2019s insinuation of Jewish amorality and group cohesion.<br \/>\nPage 5<br \/>\n\u201c 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).\u201d<br \/>\nR: I have not read these books, so I cannot comment.<br \/>\n\u201cCofnas proposes a \u201cdefault hypothesis\u201d of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century liberal movements, namely: Because of Jewish intelligence and geography\u2014particularly intelligence\u2014Jews are likely to be overrepresented in any intellectual movement or activity that is not overtly antiSemitic.\u201d I accept the idea of high average Ashkenazi IQ, especially verbal IQ, although I defer to Richard Lynn\u2019s 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.\u201d<br \/>\nR: Kamc admits that his work can be viewed as an expansion of Cofnas\u2019. <\/p>\n<p>*****\u201cI agree that in general and for obvious reasons, Jews won\u2019t 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\u2014e.g., populism, paleoconservatism, and promotion of European national cultures.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>R: Excellent that Kmac admits that Jews wouldn\u2019t be attracted to theories that don\u2019t tear them down.<br \/>\nKmac does bring out a good point that Jews are (or may be) promoting certain theories to oppose anti-Semitism. However, are \u2019populism, paleoconservatism, and promotion of European national cultures.\u2019 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. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn 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\u2014surely the most widespread and influential Jewish sub-culture of the twentieth century\u2014 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\u201d<br \/>\nR: Fine jewish dominated but admits that a very small minority even know what is going on. Strikes against evolutionary theory.<br \/>\nPage 6<br \/>\n******\u201cDetermine 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\u201d<br \/>\nR: I find this shocking. It is difficult to tease out motivations. It is speculation to claim to know someone\u2019s unconscious desires when separated by time and space. I would expect one to be an expert on an individual\u2019s biography before they could even claim anything about understanding their subconscious motivations.  Didn\u2019t see that level granular discussion in CoC, nor a nuanced discussion of motivation. When I read CoC it felt like quotes were cherry picked.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cKeep 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).]\u201d<br \/>\nR: Again showing disagreement between jews on one of the most important issues of their time. This only serves to weaken Kmac\u2019s general theory of jew\u2019s behavior.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSeveral 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.\u201d<br \/>\nR: Fair. Point for Kmac<\/p>\n<p>\u201cCofnas claims that I haven\u2019t 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\u2026.. However, this phenomenon goes far beyond the intellectual and political movements discussed in CofC. In Chapter 6 of Separation and Its Discontents (pp. 193\u2013196) 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\u2026.\u201d (so forth)\u201d<br \/>\nR: never any discussion that maybe gentiles don\u2019t 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.<br \/>\nPage 7<br \/>\n\u201cAs 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\u2026.\u201d<br \/>\nR: we have to give this point to Kmac. However, there may also be an opposite effect where an outsider can give critical points\u2013 take American idol, when a British judge plays the part of the \u201cbad cop\u201d. And interestingly, this concept is replicated across many popular entertainment shows, the foreigner \u2013 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.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cCofnas 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. \u201c<br \/>\nR: Fine, what is your taxonomy or universal feature \u2013 Jews only make policy based on a moral self-interest?<br \/>\n\u201cThere 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 \u201cZionism as a Risky Strategy\u201d and \u201cZionist Extremism Becomes Mainstream\u201d in \u201cZionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism,\u201d 220\u2013228).\u201d<br \/>\nR:Fine, lets accept Kmac\u2019s 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\u2019s overarching thesis of Jews looking out for Jews.<br \/>\n*****\u201cChomsky\u2019s 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).\u201d 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\u2019s oppression of the Palestinians.\u201d<br \/>\nR: one of the most cited living scholars is Chomsky, a liberal atheist jew who\u2019s most famous for criticizing Israel https:\/\/sites.google.com\/site\/jcfdewinter\/most-highly-cited-scientists<br \/>\nWhen reviewing stakeholder theory, it is important not to ignore any parts (funding, intellectuals, positions etc)<br \/>\nPerhaps 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\u2019s claims of self-interested behavior drive Jewish politics.<br \/>\n \u201cIt&#8217;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)\u2014a 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-\u201c<br \/>\nR: point taken for kmat on policing.<br \/>\n*****R: Does Kmac\u2019s theory predict or explain why there is drop in Jewish support for Israel?<br \/>\nPage 8<br \/>\n\u201cThese 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 (\u201ca one-note person whose one note is Israel\u201d) 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 \u201cthe top 50 donors to 527\u2019s and super-PACs, eight of the 36 Republican bigs were Jewish, and of the 14 Democrats, only one was not Jewish.\u201d 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\u2019s largest donor was Sheldon Adelson (at least $25 million),&#8230; etc\u201d<br \/>\nR: here kmac argues that Jews have a large influence in politics due to their large donations. Fine.<br \/>\nHowever, 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?<br \/>\n\u201cJewish participation on the left over the time span covered in the book (~1900\u20131970), 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).\u201d<br \/>\nR: this I cant speak to, as I am not knowledgeable in this area.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWith Emancipation into Europe, the axis of this moralism shifted from a horizontal to a vertical plane, splitting into the toplofty \u201cmission to the Gentiles\u201d of Reform Judaism on the one hand and, on the other, into Marx&#8217;s underclass of society and Freud&#8217;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\u201d<br \/>\nR: inflammatory speech against intention jews for new ideas. I would contend that some of Freud\u2019s ideas of repression valuable along with Marx\u2019s 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 \u2013 in his mind \u2013 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.<\/p>\n<p>Page 9<\/p>\n<p>******\u201d He brings up affirmative action which I discuss briefly in Chapter 8. However, \u2026 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\u2019t care to comment\u201d<br \/>\nR:Killshot why would jews support affirmative action, which directly harms their interests. He doesn\u2019t explain it, cant predict it nor care to<\/p>\n<p>Page 11<br \/>\n******\u201cSimilarly, 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.\u201d<br \/>\nR:Killshot, in this vital issue \u2013 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\u2019s theory. Lets grant Kmac\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019t think it would benefit the US, or both? Or perhaps they are morally opposed to a war of aggression?<br \/>\n*****\u201cIs the theory presented in CofC predictive?\u201d<br \/>\nR: 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?<br \/>\nPage 15<br \/>\n*****\u201cCofnas 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.\u201d<br \/>\nR: Killshot on Cofnas<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI 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).\u201d<br \/>\nR: again only nefarious motives on their behalf, however this attack is believable. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cI have expanded on these ideas in an article \u201cWhy are Professors Liberals\u201d 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.\u201d<br \/>\nR: weak, there are no explanations for why these are true.<br \/>\n \u201cTo put it very crudely, Freud needed a goy\u201d [(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\u201372).<br \/>\nR: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\u2019s premise &#8211; 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.<\/p>\n<p>*****I quote Benedict as saying we should study other cultures in order \u201cto pass judgment on the dominant traits of our own civilization\u201d\u2014 quite possibly a plea for tolerance for homosexuality<br \/>\nR: 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.<br \/>\nPage 18<br \/>\n\u201cMoreover, nothing rides on Herrnstein\u2019s 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\u201d<br \/>\nR: Does this change or alter your theory?<\/p>\n<p>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\u2019t so much blame Jews, but blame Nazis.<br \/>\nThe core of the Jewish argument is that Kmac\u2019s materialism is amoral. It will lead to the horrors of 20th century.<br \/>\nI think this is the most important point of all.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kevin MacDonald joined me on my Youtube channel Tuesday night and Nathan Cofnas enters an hour after Kevin leaves and here is Nathan&#8217;s rebuttal to Kevin&#8217;s rebuttal) and Richard Spencer joins me at 5pm Wednesday (CA time). Kevin MacDonald vs &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,6795],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jews","category-kevin-macdonald"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t<!-- All in One SEO 4.9.10 - aioseo.com -->\n\t<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Kevin MacDonald joined me on my Youtube channel Tuesday night and Nathan Cofnas enters an hour after Kevin leaves and here is Nathan&#039;s rebuttal to Kevin&#039;s rebuttal) and Richard Spencer joins me at 5pm Wednesday (CA time). Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23) JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18) STANDING ON A WOOD\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"max-image-preview:large\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Luke Ford\"\/>\n\t<meta name=\"google-site-verification\" content=\"HMjuOfLRyzTPB-5Z5FG4BHkfZ1fbEij34rmbKM3BkZ4\" \/>\n\t<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"generator\" content=\"All in One SEO (AIOSEO) 4.9.10\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Luke Ford - No sacred cows.\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper - Luke Ford\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Kevin MacDonald joined me on my Youtube channel Tuesday night and Nathan Cofnas enters an hour after Kevin leaves and here is Nathan&#039;s rebuttal to Kevin&#039;s rebuttal) and Richard Spencer joins me at 5pm Wednesday (CA time). Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23) JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18) STANDING ON A WOOD\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/lukesanta.jpg\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:image:secure_url\" content=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/lukesanta.jpg\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-03-19T15:15:22+00:00\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-28T00:54:35+00:00\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/lukecford\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@lukeford\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper - Luke Ford\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"Kevin MacDonald joined me on my Youtube channel Tuesday night and Nathan Cofnas enters an hour after Kevin leaves and here is Nathan&#039;s rebuttal to Kevin&#039;s rebuttal) and Richard Spencer joins me at 5pm Wednesday (CA time). Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23) JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18) STANDING ON A WOOD\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@lukeford\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/lukesanta.jpg\" \/>\n\t\t<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"aioseo-schema\">\n\t\t\t{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"BlogPosting\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#blogposting\",\"name\":\"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper - Luke Ford\",\"headline\":\"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?author=1#author\"},\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/#person\"},\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#articleImage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/litespeed\\\/avatar\\\/af8ecf5ef66099147247f500ec429b38.jpg?ver=1784204923\",\"width\":96,\"height\":96,\"caption\":\"Luke Ford\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-03-19T07:15:22-08:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-27T16:54:35-08:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#webpage\"},\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#webpage\"},\"articleSection\":\"Jews, Kevin MacDonald\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#breadcrumblist\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog#listItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\",\"nextItem\":{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?cat=29#listItem\",\"name\":\"Jews\"}},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?cat=29#listItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jews\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?cat=29\",\"nextItem\":{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#listItem\",\"name\":\"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper\"},\"previousItem\":{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog#listItem\",\"name\":\"Home\"}},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#listItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper\",\"previousItem\":{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?cat=29#listItem\",\"name\":\"Jews\"}}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/#person\",\"name\":\"Luke Ford\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#personImage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/litespeed\\\/avatar\\\/af8ecf5ef66099147247f500ec429b38.jpg?ver=1784204923\",\"width\":96,\"height\":96,\"caption\":\"Luke Ford\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?author=1#author\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?author=1\",\"name\":\"Luke Ford\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#authorImage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/litespeed\\\/avatar\\\/af8ecf5ef66099147247f500ec429b38.jpg?ver=1784204923\",\"width\":96,\"height\":96,\"caption\":\"Luke Ford\"}},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020\",\"name\":\"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper - Luke Ford\",\"description\":\"Kevin MacDonald joined me on my Youtube channel Tuesday night and 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). Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23) JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18) STANDING ON A WOOD\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?p=121020#breadcrumblist\"},\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?author=1#author\"},\"creator\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/?author=1#author\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-03-19T07:15:22-08:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-27T16:54:35-08:00\"},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Luke Ford\",\"alternateName\":\"No Sacred Cows\",\"description\":\"No sacred cows.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lukeford.net\\\/blog\\\/#person\"}}]}\n\t\t<\/script>\n\t\t<!-- All in One SEO -->\n\n","aioseo_head_json":{"title":"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper - Luke Ford","description":"Kevin MacDonald joined me on my Youtube channel Tuesday night and 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). Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23) JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18) STANDING ON A WOOD","canonical_url":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020","robots":"max-image-preview:large","keywords":"","webmasterTools":{"google-site-verification":"HMjuOfLRyzTPB-5Z5FG4BHkfZ1fbEij34rmbKM3BkZ4","miscellaneous":""},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#blogposting","name":"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper - Luke Ford","headline":"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?author=1#author"},"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/#person"},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#articleImage","url":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/litespeed\/avatar\/af8ecf5ef66099147247f500ec429b38.jpg?ver=1784204923","width":96,"height":96,"caption":"Luke Ford"},"datePublished":"2018-03-19T07:15:22-08:00","dateModified":"2023-08-27T16:54:35-08:00","inLanguage":"en-US","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#webpage"},"isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#webpage"},"articleSection":"Jews, Kevin MacDonald"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#breadcrumblist","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog#listItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog","nextItem":{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?cat=29#listItem","name":"Jews"}},{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?cat=29#listItem","position":2,"name":"Jews","item":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?cat=29","nextItem":{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#listItem","name":"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper"},"previousItem":{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog#listItem","name":"Home"}},{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#listItem","position":3,"name":"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper","previousItem":{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?cat=29#listItem","name":"Jews"}}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/#person","name":"Luke Ford","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#personImage","url":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/litespeed\/avatar\/af8ecf5ef66099147247f500ec429b38.jpg?ver=1784204923","width":96,"height":96,"caption":"Luke Ford"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?author=1#author","url":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?author=1","name":"Luke Ford","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#authorImage","url":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/litespeed\/avatar\/af8ecf5ef66099147247f500ec429b38.jpg?ver=1784204923","width":96,"height":96,"caption":"Luke Ford"}},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#webpage","url":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020","name":"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper - Luke Ford","description":"Kevin MacDonald joined me on my Youtube channel Tuesday night and 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). Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23) JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18) STANDING ON A WOOD","inLanguage":"en-US","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/#website"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020#breadcrumblist"},"author":{"@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?author=1#author"},"creator":{"@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?author=1#author"},"datePublished":"2018-03-19T07:15:22-08:00","dateModified":"2023-08-27T16:54:35-08:00"},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/","name":"Luke Ford","alternateName":"No Sacred Cows","description":"No sacred cows.","inLanguage":"en-US","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/#person"}}]},"og:locale":"en_US","og:site_name":"Luke Ford - No sacred cows.","og:type":"article","og:title":"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper - Luke Ford","og:description":"Kevin MacDonald joined me on my Youtube channel Tuesday night and 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). Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23) JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18) STANDING ON A WOOD","og:url":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020","og:image":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/lukesanta.jpg","og:image:secure_url":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/lukesanta.jpg","og:image:width":800,"og:image:height":600,"article:published_time":"2018-03-19T15:15:22+00:00","article:modified_time":"2023-08-28T00:54:35+00:00","article:publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/lukecford","twitter:card":"summary_large_image","twitter:site":"@lukeford","twitter:title":"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper - Luke Ford","twitter:description":"Kevin MacDonald joined me on my Youtube channel Tuesday night and 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). Kevin MacDonald vs Nathan Cofnas (3-29-23) JQ Debate: Nathan Cofnas Critiques Kevin MacDonald (4-17-18) STANDING ON A WOOD","twitter:creator":"@lukeford","twitter:image":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/lukesanta.jpg"},"aioseo_meta_data":{"post_id":"121020","title":null,"description":null,"keywords":[],"keyphrases":{"focus":{"keyphrase":"","score":0,"analysis":{"keyphraseInTitle":{"score":0,"maxScore":9,"error":1}}},"additional":[]},"primary_term":null,"canonical_url":null,"og_title":null,"og_description":null,"og_object_type":"default","og_image_type":"default","og_image_url":null,"og_image_width":null,"og_image_height":null,"og_image_custom_url":null,"og_image_custom_fields":null,"og_video":"","og_custom_url":null,"og_article_section":null,"og_article_tags":[],"twitter_use_og":false,"twitter_card":"default","twitter_image_type":"default","twitter_image_url":null,"twitter_image_custom_url":null,"twitter_image_custom_fields":null,"twitter_title":null,"twitter_description":null,"schema":{"blockGraphs":[],"customGraphs":[],"default":{"data":{"Article":[],"Course":[],"Dataset":[],"FAQPage":[],"Movie":[],"Person":[],"Product":[],"ProductReview":[],"Car":[],"Recipe":[],"Service":[],"SoftwareApplication":[],"WebPage":[]},"graphName":"BlogPosting","isEnabled":true},"graphs":[]},"schema_type":"default","schema_type_options":null,"pillar_content":false,"robots_default":true,"robots_noindex":false,"robots_noarchive":false,"robots_nosnippet":false,"robots_nofollow":false,"robots_noimageindex":false,"robots_noodp":false,"robots_notranslate":false,"robots_max_snippet":"-1","robots_max_videopreview":"-1","robots_max_imagepreview":"large","priority":null,"frequency":"default","local_seo":null,"breadcrumb_settings":null,"limit_modified_date":false,"ai":null,"created":"2023-05-12 06:35:02","updated":"2025-06-05 20:33:17","seo_analyzer_scan_date":null},"aioseo_breadcrumb":"<div class=\"aioseo-breadcrumbs\"><span class=\"aioseo-breadcrumb\">\n\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\" title=\"Home\">Home<\/a>\n\t\t<\/span><span class=\"aioseo-breadcrumb-separator\">&raquo;<\/span><span class=\"aioseo-breadcrumb\">\n\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?cat=29\" title=\"Jews\">Jews<\/a>\n\t\t<\/span><span class=\"aioseo-breadcrumb-separator\">&raquo;<\/span><span class=\"aioseo-breadcrumb\">\n\t\t\tKevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper\n\t\t<\/span><\/div>","aioseo_breadcrumb_json":[{"label":"Home","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog"},{"label":"Jews","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?cat=29"},{"label":"Kevin MacDonald Replies To The Nathan Cofnas Paper","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=121020"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121020","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=121020"}],"version-history":[{"count":27,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121020\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":150544,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121020\/revisions\/150544"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=121020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=121020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=121020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}