The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Kevin MacDonald Archive
Reply to Nathan Cofnas
Debating THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
1200px-KMtrilogy

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search TextOpen All Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

After 20 years of silence from academics, Nathan Cofnas has written a comprehensive critical review of The Culture of Critique in an academic venue. I have been waiting for this to happen and was beginning to think it never would. Academics want their work to be taken seriously, and honest academics value the rough and tumble of academic debate. But what I got was silence, or comments like that of Steven Pinker, who is listed in the Acknowledgements section of Cofnas’s review, saying that it was below the threshold of academic interest—and that he hadn’t read it.[1]Kevin MacDonald ([email protected]) is Professor Emeritus of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

My book was incendiary, and I knew that. What had begun as a theoretical idea on how human groups could become vehicles of natural selection (rank heresy at the time and still controversial but increasingly respectable[2]For example, cultural group selection is a commonly held view of members of the Cultural Evolution Society. My theorizing going back to the early 1980s has always emphasized cultural factors, particularly social controls and ideology in regulating behavior, beginning with work on the maintenance of monogamy in European culture (e.g, here). This progressed to a discussion of the Spartans as exhibiting what I later termed a group evolutionary strategy (in Chapter 8 of Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (New York: Plenum, 1988). I then decided to do a similar treatment of Judaism and began research on it in 1991.) had turned into a life-changing project. As a result of the silence, my response was to continue to expand on my ideas and to keep them out there so people could judge for themselves. I would have much preferred to be a respectable academic with a solid reputation, attending conferences and writing only academic papers and books. But respectability was impossible, so I decided to continue writing in this area outside the academic realm.

Thus I became something of an activist intellectual—following in the footsteps, one might say, of the many Jewish intellectuals discussed in my work, but completely outside the academic system. Hounded out of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society and ostracized at my university,[3]Cofnas makes the following claim:

The strategy employed 18 years ago—declaring his work to be anti-Semitic and/or to not reach the threshold to warrant scholarly attention—had the doubly unfortunate effect of intimidating scholars with a legitimate interest in the topic of Jewish evolution and behavior, and creating a perception among some laypeople—even if it was false—that MacDonald was being persecuted by the academic community.

In fact, I was being persecuted by the academic community by any ordinary meaning of the term. Following the Shulevitz controversy mentioned by Cofnas, I was on a panel devoted to my work at the 2000 meetings of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society. It was quite raucous, with a lot of very vocal opposition to my work, followed by cold shoulders from other officers and other prominent members of the society (I held the office of Secretary at the time). I never felt welcome thereafter. And although I was blackballed at least once at a prestigious academic journal, I did manage to continue to publish my work on personality, developmental psychology, evolutionary theory of culture, and the evolution of intelligence in reputable, even prominent academic venues. More painful were events at my university beginning in 2006–07 following a visit by Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center, later joined by a representative of the Anti-Defamation League. This began a process of ostracism and intense hostility from many CSULB faculty, expressed on faculty email listservs maintained by the university, as well as condemnatory resolutions by academic departments and the Academic Senate.
I decided to push the envelope. I started by writing a few blogs on my website related to my three books on Judaism and other topics related to evolutionary psychology. Then, in 2008, I started The Occidental Observer where I could get other writers involved . A few years later, I took over editing The Occidental Quarterly and am proud to have published a great many academic-quality articles over the years, many by Ph.Ds. Sadly most of the writers for both TOO and TOQ have had to remain anonymous because of the reign of terror at universities (and in the private sector) against anyone who dissents from the status quo on race and ethnicity.

A major reason for my activism was because of the reading I had done in writing the trilogy, particularly CofC.A People that Shall Dwell Alone was about how Judaism operated in traditional societies, and Separation and Its Discontents was essentially about anti-Semitism in traditional societies. This is water over the dam, one might say, however one might analyze causes of anti-Semitism in times past. But that changed in reading about the role of Jewish activism on the left over the past century. Misguided intellectual movements like psychoanalysis may be successfully rebutted and eventually fall by the wayside—as psychoanalysis has. Disastrous political ventures such as Communism may eventually self-destruct after wreaking untold horror and dysgenic mass murder. However, the effects of immigration policy are of immediate and critical concern for the entire West. As I noted at the outset of Chapter 7 of CofC:

Immigration policy is a paradigmatic example of conflicts of interest between ethnic groups because immigration policy determines the future demographic composition of the nation. Ethnic groups unable to influence immigration policy in their own interests will eventually be displaced by groups able to accomplish this goal. Immigration policy is thus of fundamental interest to an evolutionist.

In other words, I began to see myself as having a dog in this fight. What was happening was, from an evolutionary perspective, a disaster for the White people of the West. Ethnic displacement is like reducing an extended family or other lineage—a drastic loss of fitness, as Frank Salter has shown,[4]Frank K Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Kinship in an Age of Mass Migration (London: Routledge, 2006). and really no different from displacement of one species or subspecies by another in the natural world. This is natural selection in action (although one hesitates to call a consciously engineered process “natural”), as the gene frequencies, genetic combinations and bio-cultures characteristic of other peoples increase relative to those of the indigenous people of Western European countries as well as their descendants in North America, Australia, and New Zealand.

ORDER IT NOW

So I was highly motivated to continue my work, even outside the academic setting. And, as Cofnas notes, the books became influential—particularly CofC. I think a lot of that was because of my newfound activism aimed at building an audience and continuing to expand on the trilogy, but also because there hadn’t been any noteworthy critiques of it. The lack of credible criticism created something of an anomaly: What is now called the Alt Right—a movement that is vilified by all sectors of the establishment, from left to right—was embracing an academic book on Jewish activism published by a mainstream academic publisher that had never received a proper hearing in the academic world. One would think that the academic establishment would come down hard on such a book, bringing all its prestige and media access to eradicate this heresy. But nothing. So, it continued to fester and gain popularity.

Whatever one thinks of this reply, I welcome the opportunity to respond. Frankly, a reasoned exchange is long overdue.

 

My procedure here is to respond to each of Cofnas’s substantive points in the same order as they appear in his review. I do not respond to the ad hominem attacks. Nevertheless, there are several general points to be made.

  1. Much of Cofnas’s critique depends on the claim that I conceive of the Jewish community as monolithic. As a result, he repeatedly brings up examples of Jews who dissent from various intellectual and political views that are common among Jews or those participating in the Jewish movements I discuss (e.g., Jewish critics of Israel, Jewish critics of the left). On the contrary and as will be apparent below, I see the Jewish community as having important diversity of viewpoint. However, the purpose of my book is to study movements that have been influential and to determine the Jewish role in these movements. This is entirely compatible with dissent by some Jews.

As a result, although the theory is falsifiable (e.g., by showing that these movements were not in any interesting sense Jewish or that they didn’t really have any power or influence), it cannot be falsified by providing individual counterexamples.

  1. Cofnas in several places characterizes my view as stating that the fact that some non-Jews have participated in Jewish movements implies Jewish manipulation, Machiavellianism, or that they have been blindly indoctrinated (e.g., Margaret Mead as a “puppet” of Franz Boas). These are misrepresentations. My view is that non-Jews who participate in Jewish movements may have a variety of motivations, ranging from sincere belief (perhaps motivated by their own, independently derived hostility to the cultural norms being attacked by the movement) to naked self-interest (non-Jews who see career opportunities by participating). A good example of the latter not discussed in CofC is the neoconservative infrastructure composed of well-funded think tanks and lobbying groups, with multiple opportunities for access to careers, not only in these think tanks and lobbying groups, but in government, the media, and universities (here, pp. 11–12). But even when participating in such a movement has material rewards, there is no implication that the non-Jews involved don’t sincerely hold their beliefs.
  2. In general, Jewish support for any particular idea or cause will be sensitive to each generation’s perceived interests given changing circumstances. Cofnas has a static, ahistorical conception of Jewish interests, assuming, e.g., that supporting Zionism is essential to Jewish group interests and self-identity since the origins of political Zionism or perhaps since the origins of the Diaspora (the traditional Jewish phrase: “Next year in Jerusalem”). On the contrary, as discussed in several places here, Jewish support for causes like Zionism, radical leftism, or particular governments have a history—a beginning, a middle, and often an end. If it’s one thing that has characterized Jews throughout their history, it’s that they have been what evolutionary biologist Richard Alexander termed “flexible strategizers.”[5]Richard Alexander, Darwinism and Human Affairs (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1979; as applied to Jewish groups, see here, p. 5 and Chapter 1 of A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. There is no reason to suppose that will not continue in the future.
Introductory Material • 3,800 Words

1. 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). This is incorrect. In fact, the three books are quite separate theoretically and discuss entirely different data sets. A People That Shall Dwell Alone develops a theory of Judaism in traditional societies based on the idea that humans are able to create “experiments in living” that can, e.g., erect barriers between themselves and the surrounding society, structure mating opportunities in a eugenic manner, and structure relationships within the Jewish community and between Jews and non-Jews. CofC could be completely misguided but all the claims made in A People That Shall Dwell Alone true.

The same may be said about Separation and Its Discontents whose value depends on the adequacy of the theoretical framework (social identity theory which, although mentioned in CofC, is hardly essential to that work and certainly not disputed by Cofnas) and the accuracy of my use of the historical sources. Again, CofC could be completely misguided while Separation and Its Discontents was entirely valid.

2. Cofnas proposes a “default hypothesis” of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century liberal movements, namely: Because of Jewish intelligence and geography—particularly intelligence—Jews are likely to be overrepresented in any intellectual movement or activity that is not overtly anti-Semitic.” I accept the idea of high average Ashkenazi IQ, especially verbal IQ, although I defer to Richard Lynn’s research on the mean; my critique of Cochran and Harpending is here. I therefore expect Jews to be overrepresented in intellectual movements, and we could leave it at that. However, there is nothing wrong with attempting something more ambitious, such as exploring how these intellectuals perceived their actions (motivation) and exploring the dynamics of the movements by asking questions like whether ethnic networking was important (as it has been throughout Jewish history) and whether any generalizations could be made about the leaders of these movements (the guru phenomenon) and how they dealt with dissent. I agree that in general and for obvious reasons, Jews won’t be attracted to theories that cast Jews in a bad light; indeed, a major point regarding Jewish motivation for the theories discussed is to oppose anti-Semitism. Moreover, as mentioned below, Jews have been underrepresented in some theories and cultural trends that do not cast Jews in a bad light or at least do not necessarily do so—e.g., populism, paleoconservatism, and promotion of European national cultures.

This is the general framework (from the Preface to the paperback edition of Culture of Critique, 2002):

(1.) Find influential movements dominated by Jews, with no implication that all or most Jews are involved in these movements and no restrictions on what the movements are. For example, I touch on Jewish neo-conservatism which is a departure in some ways from the other movements I discuss [later expanded into a chapter-length essay using the same framework as CofC]. In general, relatively few Jews were involved in most of these movements and significant numbers of Jews may have been unaware of their existence. Even Jewish leftist radicalism—surely the most widespread and influential Jewish sub-culture of the twentieth century—may have been a minority movement within Jewish communities in the United States and other Western societies for most periods. As a result, when I criticize these movements I am not necessarily criticizing most Jews. Nevertheless, these movements were influential and they were Jewishly motivated.

(2.) Determine whether the Jewish participants in those movements identified as Jews and thought of their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests. Involvement may be unconscious or involve self-deception, but for the most part it was quite easy and straightforward to find evidence for these propositions. If I thought that self-deception was important (as in the case of many Jewish radicals), I provided evidence that in fact they did identify as Jews and were deeply concerned about Jewish issues despite surface appearances to the contrary. …

(3.) Try to gauge the influence of these movements on gentile society. Keep in mind that the influence of an intellectual or political movement dominated by Jews is independent of the percentage of the Jewish community that is involved in the movement or supports the movement. [For example, Zionism is a Jewish movement that, until the establishment of Israel, was not a majority view within the Jewish community. It was nevertheless influential (e.g., obtaining the Balfour Declaration, pressuring President Truman to recognize Israel).]

(4.) Try to show how non-Jews responded to these movements—for example, were they a source of anti-Semitism?

Several of the movements I discuss have been very influential in the social sciences. However, I do not argue that there are no Jews who do good social science, and in fact [in Chapter 2] I provide a list of prominent Jewish social scientists who in my opinion do not meet the conditions outlined under (2) above.

This framework will be useful in the ensuing discussion. In any case, a default position is just that. Simplifying theory certainly has its advantages, but quite often much more can be said. Of course, the burden is on me to show that a more complex theory gives a deeper explanation of what we see.

ORDER IT NOW

3. Cofnas claims that I haven’t provided evidence that Jews involved in particular intellectual movements have often gone out of their way to recruit non-Jews as visible leaders of the movement. I will discuss this as it arises in his detailed comments on Boas where I also mention Freud, and leftist radicalism. However, this phenomenon goes far beyond the intellectual and political movements discussed in CofC. In Chapter 6 of Separation and Its Discontents (pp. 193–196) I discuss several historical examples, beginning with the New Christians during the period of the Inquisition in fifteenth-century Spain. Jewish organizations had an active role in establishing and maintaining gentile-dominated organizations opposed to anti-Semitism in Germany in the period from 1870 to 1933 and in supplying materials without any indication of their source to anti-fascist candidates in the U.K. in the 1930s. In the U.S., I cite historian Howard Sachar for his discussion of “non-Jewish ‘front’ committees at which Jews would prove exceptionally adept in future years.” including areas such as opposition to Czarist Russia, support for liberal immigration policies, removing Christianity from the public square, and socialist and communist movements (the latter of which is expanded on in Chapter 3 of CofC). In the same vein, I also cite research indicating that in the ancient world there was an entire apologetic literature written by Jews masquerading as gentiles.

As I note in Separation and Its Discontents, such a strategy makes excellent psychological sense:

From an evolutionary perspective the intent is to make the Jewish cause appear to be in the interests of others as well. When goals are cast in ethnic or national terms, they are not likely to appeal to those outside the group. Indeed, such obviously self-interested goals would be likely to alert outsiders to conflicts of interest between ingroup and outgroup. On the other hand, a standard finding in social psychology is that people are more likely to respond positively when goals are advocated by similar others, or when the goal is cast as being in the interests of all rather than in the interests of an outgroup, as predicted by social identity theory and genetic similarity theory (see Chapter 1).

4. Cofnas claims that I cherry-pick examples and ignore examples that do not fit my theory, pointing to examples like Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx. However, as noted above, there is no implication that all Jews (or all famous Jews) fit into a particular mold. There was in fact strong opposition to Zionism within the Jewish community during the early decades of the twentieth century motivated by fears, based firmly in Jewish history, that Zionism among Diaspora Jews would be seen as disloyalty by their fellow citizens (see the sections titled “Zionism as a Risky Strategy” and “Zionist Extremism Becomes Mainstream” in “Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism,” 220–228). Chomsky’s position has been outside the Jewish mainstream, although quite recently segments of liberal Jews have actively opposed central features of Zionism as it exists in Israel today (e.g., Philip Weiss (editor of Mondoweiss), Jewish Voice for Peace, J Street).

Like Chomsky, these Jews tend to be on the left, generally perceiving a conflict between contemporary leftist ideals of multicultural harmony (which they support) and the reality of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Support for Israel is definitely slipping on the left. For example, the 2018 AIPAC convention had a host of prominent politicians—as usual, but with a greater than usual emphasis on Democratic politicians—presumably an attempt to shore up support for Israel within the Democratic Party (see Philip Weiss, “Schumer and Dems Outdo Trump at AIPAC—There’s No Peace Because ‘Palestinians Don’t Believe in Torah’”). Nevertheless, opposition to Israel within the party is growing, with more voices than ever willing to reject the AIPAC line. Opposition to Israel has also become quite important in the UK Labour Party (often vilified as “anti-Semitism”)

It’s also worth noting that although there has always been a substantial consensus on Israel since its establishment by American Jews, the Israel Lobby has maintained this consensus partly by policing the Jewish community by punishing dissenters (see here, here, here)—a very traditional mechanism of control within the Jewish community discussed in Chapter 7 of A People That Shall Dwell Alone. Nevertheless, dissent is growing within the Jewish community.

But the important question, as always, is not counting heads—even prominent ones like Chomsky—but in determining where the influence lies, and at this writing there is no indication for a diminishing influence of the Israel Lobby and major Jewish donors on American political elites. These donors collectively contribute vastly out of proportion to their numbers and many of them are well-known to be strong supporters of Israel. In the U.S., donors like Haim Saban (“a one-note person whose one note is Israel”) and Sheldon Adelson, prominent donors to the Democrat and Republican parties respectively, come to mind as primarily motivated to support pro-Israel policies. But they are not alone. On a list of “the top 50 donors to 527’s and super-PACs, eight of the 36 Republican bigs were Jewish, and of the 14 Democrats, only one was not Jewish.” The Democrats are basically funded by Jews, and Jewish donations to the GOP are too large to be ignored by politicians seeking higher office. President Trump’s largest donor was Sheldon Adelson (at least $25 million), “who has long prioritized Israel in his political calculations.” Adelson is reputed to have influenced the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and has recently offered to fund the move. Philip Weiss suggests that Adelson’s money is behind the recent appointment of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State.

Regarding Marx, I have a brief discussion of the perception that Marx was an anti-Semite at the beginning of Chapter 3 whose topic is “whether acceptance of radical, universalist ideologies and participation in radical, universalist movements are compatible with Jewish identification.” As I note there, whatever Marx’s views, they are not important for understanding Jewish participation on the left over the time span covered in the book (~1900–1970), and in general the point of that chapter is that Jewish leftists tended to have strong Jewish identifications and were quite concerned about anti-Semitism (perhaps not the case with Marx). These leftists were not in any sense anti-Semites.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that John Murray Cuddihy, whose The Ordeal of Civility is cited repeatedly in CofC, provides what one might term a deep Jewish structure to Marx’s work.[6]John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity (New York: Basic Books, 1974). I corresponded with Cuddihy toward the end of his life. He was very happy to see that I had found his work useful, which I interpreted as suggesting that he felt that his book had been ignored and hadn’t received the attention it deserved. Perhaps the fact that he had written a brilliant book on post-Emancipation Jewry only to see it essentially ignored by later scholars had a role in my decision to continue to promote my work outside an academic setting. For example:

The “final triumph” of Marxism is Marx’s refusal to give a remedial and apologetic reading of the economic behavior of the Jews, describing it with unembarrassed bluntness, only to turn around and made this crude Judentum the very stuff (Unterbau) of the bourgeois civilization of the goyim. It is a failure of understanding that seeds in Marx’s conviction—that stripped of his sublimations and refinements a Gentile is as avaricious as a Jew—an offense only to Jews. “Christianity,” Marx writes, “overcame real Judaism only in appearance. It was too refined, too spiritual, to eliminate the crudeness of practical need except by elevating it into the blue. Christianity is the sublime thought of Judaism, and Judaism is the vulgar practical application of Christianity.”

Like theodicies, the sociodicies of the Diaspora giants cope with the problem of pain, suffering, and evil. Each bestows meaning, and thus “solves” the tsuris of Galut, the status-loss of Emancipation, the humiliations of “assimilation” (“imitation”), the embarrassment of being defined as “primitive.” If, as E. M. Forster said, “Coarseness reveals; vulgarity conceals,” Freud, Marx, and Lévi-Strauss struggle to redefine Ostjude: He becomes—like Rousseau’s “natural” man—an instrument of critique of the Jewish (and Gentile) parvenu. He may be a “primitive” and crude; he is not hypocritical (Freud’s “ethnic of honesty”).[7]Ibid., 160–161.
(John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity (New York: Basic Books, 1974). I corresponded with Cuddihy toward the end of his life. He was very happy to see that I had found his work useful, which I interpreted as suggesting that he felt that his book had been ignored and hadn’t received the attention it deserved. Perhaps the fact that he had written a brilliant book on post-Emancipation Jewry only to see it essentially ignored by later scholars had a role in my decision to continue to promote my work outside an academic setting.)

ORDER IT NOW

When Jewry was physically peripheral to Europe, locked into its shtetlach in the pale, this provincial assertion of moral superiority, of moral purism, was that of a spatial outsider, a geographical provincial. With Emancipation into Europe, the axis of this moralism shifted from a horizontal to a vertical plane, splitting into the toplofty “mission to the Gentiles” of Reform Judaism on the one hand and, on the other, into Marx’s underclass of society and Freud’s underside of personality. In each case, proletariat and id were invested with a subversively pure moral critique of the hypocritical, if superior, civilization of the West.[8]Ibid., 184.
(John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity (New York: Basic Books, 1974). I corresponded with Cuddihy toward the end of his life. He was very happy to see that I had found his work useful, which I interpreted as suggesting that he felt that his book had been ignored and hadn’t received the attention it deserved. Perhaps the fact that he had written a brilliant book on post-Emancipation Jewry only to see it essentially ignored by later scholars had a role in my decision to continue to promote my work outside an academic setting.)

To learn the nature of the civilization of the West we must go…to the great unassimilated, implacable Jews of the West, to a Marx, to a Freud, to a Lévi-Strauss, to a Harry Wolfson, to those who exhibit a principled and stubborn resistance to the whole Western “thing.” These proud pariahs experience Western civilization as an incognito or secularized form of Christianity, and they therefore openly resist it as such.[9]Ibid., 231; emphasis in original.
(John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity (New York: Basic Books, 1974). I corresponded with Cuddihy toward the end of his life. He was very happy to see that I had found his work useful, which I interpreted as suggesting that he felt that his book had been ignored and hadn’t received the attention it deserved. Perhaps the fact that he had written a brilliant book on post-Emancipation Jewry only to see it essentially ignored by later scholars had a role in my decision to continue to promote my work outside an academic setting.)

Again, nothing really hinges on whether Marx identified as a Jew or saw himself as advancing Jewish interests. However, I agree with Cuddihy’s assessment, and conclude that Marx’s writing does suggest at least an implicit congruence with the main themes of CofC.

Regarding Soros, he was not mentioned for two reasons: during the mid-1990s when the book was written, he had not become the iconic funder of the left that he is today. Moreover, Soros’s actions are consistent with those of many Jewish activists on the left these days: strong support for immigration and multiculturalism throughout the Diaspora and critical of Israel (see above). I have never read anything on Soros’s Jewish identification and how he sees his actions in light of being Jewish but would be interested in doing so. Whatever one finds on this, it would not impact the material on Jewish intellectual and political movements—particularly the Jewish role in altering US immigration policy and promoting multiculturalism, and certainly including the other movements discussed in CofC. Again, I never assume Jews are monolithic on any issue.

Cofnas: “Just as problematically, in a number of cases MacDonald fails to report that Jews whom he identifies as ethnic activists took stands against Israel and other Jewish interests (again, defining ‘Jewish interests’ in MacDonald’s terms as ethnic self-preservation).”

Again, support for Israel is not synonymous with how Jews see their ethnic interests at any particular time, and there has likely never been a time when it was unanimous. Jewish support for a Jewish ethnostate was a minority view among Jews prior to the end of World War II, and today Jewish support for Israel in the Diaspora is declining—particularly noticeable among liberal/left Jews. There may be many reasons for this, ranging from lofty idealism to concern that Israeli policies will be disastrous for Israel and Jewish interests in the long run.

5. Cofnas: “Many twentieth-century Jews ostensibly abandoned their Jewish identity and sought to assimilate. MacDonald points out that these Jews often did not support gentile nationalist movements—which he acknowledges were anti-Semitic—and he argues that this is evidence that these Jews were insincere in their desire to assimilate and were actually engaging in ‘Jewish crypsis’ (his term).”

Cofnas gives no examples of this, either from CofC or my other writing, although in a later passage he claims that I attribute crypsis to the Frankfurt School luminaries (discussed below). As a result, I can’t rebut it. However, in 2016 I wrote an article on how Jews should be treated if they express interest in aiding the Alt Right (see section titled “Jews and the Alt Right” in “The Alt Right and the Jews“), and I have several Jewish writers who write for The Occidental Observer (e.g., Dr. Marcus Alethia: “As an American (first) and Jew (second) who supports Trump and Trumpism, the European New Right, and anyone concerned with the long-term impacts of mass immigration, I want to see more Jews, particularly younger, Generation Z Jews move to our ideological side.” I am more than happy to welcome such individuals.

6 Cofnas claims that I misrepresent sources but defers examples. I will discuss these as they come up in his specific comments.

7. Cofnas claims that my theory can’t be falsified because “no evidence is ever provided that is acknowledged to count against the theory.” Cofnas asserts this because he does not really grasp what I am saying. Again, there are different groups of Jews. He brings up affirmative action which I discuss briefly in Chapter 8. However, the point I am making in Chapter 8 that in a multicultural society, there will be disagreements on issues like affirmative action because different ethnic groups have different talents and abilities. In general in CofC I attempted to describe different factions regarded as influential and attempted to understand if Jewish influence is important in particular areas. But in the case of affirmative action, I have never done an examination of the relative importance of different strands of Jewish activism and voting have been in the affirmative action debate and so don’t care to comment. The individual Jews and even Jewish organizations that I list there as opposing affirmative action may or may not be representative of the Jewish community as a whole. Similarly, in the lead up to the Iraq war, there was considerable (I think decisive: here, here, here) influence from neoconservatives and Jewish organization like AIPAC, but polls indicated most Jews opposed the war.

As noted above, what would count against what I am arguing is to show that I am wrong about specific claims—that, e.g., there is no interesting sense in which psychoanalysis was a Jewish movement, or that Jews and the organized Jewish community (not all Jews) were not at all decisive in influencing U.S. immigration policy, or I am mistaken about the internal dynamics of these movements (e.g., the treatment of dissenters, the guru phenomenon). Cofnas doesn’t even begin to address any of these issues. The theses of CofC are eminently falsifiable.

Is the theory presented in CofC predictive? Predictive power is considered the gold standard of scientific theories. However, consider the difficulties of developing a predictive theory of Jewish group behavior in the post-Enlightenment West, i.e., after the lapse of strong community controls on the behavior of individual Jews typical of traditional societies. Within the Jewish group there is wide variation in Jewish identity, ranging from highly committed activists to Jews who are uninvolved for personal reasons (e.g., psychiatric issues or bad experiences with the Jewish community) or perhaps they have family ties to non-Jews because of intermarriage or they are lower on ethnocentrism. The activist edge of the Jewish community tends to be the most strongly identified and will be the main force charting the direction of the community as a whole, and there is often more or less of a consensus among the organized Jewish community on particular issues like immigration or Israel, despite there being some strongly identified Jews who dissent from this consensus (e.g., Stephen Steinlight on immigration [here, pp. iv–vi) or Philip Weiss on Zionism).

But even assuming a well-reasoned consensus among the activists as to what is in the interests of Jews, this consensus could change if conditions change. Activists might evaluate the effects of Muslim immigration as harming Jewish interests in the long run, as Steinlight does, and the consensus of Diaspora Jews on Israel may change for a number of reasons (e.g., they may see their position in the Diaspora West as endangered because Israeli behavior has become indefensible and has lost support from non-Jews). Such a change in activist consensus would likely be gradual, just as the decline in Jewish support for the USSR was gradual. Non-Jewish elites may begin to see that their business interests are compromised because of successful pressure by the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or Muslims may begin to exert real power in the West, as seems to be happening in the U.K.

Moreover, the consensus may not be entirely rational. It’s clear that many activist Jews in the Diaspora (but by no means all) will support Israel no matter what, while at the same time Israel has become increasingly dominated by extreme ethnonationalists bent on extending current policy of dispossessing the Palestinians (see, e.g., here, p. 49–50; here). A prediction of what Diaspora Jews will do if these trends continue to accelerate would be a bit like predicting the weather in Los Angeles on a specific day in 2030. I am content to regard CofC as a descriptive historical account of some important examples of Jewish group behavior embedded within an evolutionary framework and leave it at that.

8. Cofnas claims that I have ignored centuries of non-Jewish radicalism. Not true. What I call an “indigenous culture of critique“ has been a major concern of mine for years (see also here, here, and here) and will be a central part of a book on Western peoples (an interest of mine that long pre-dated my interest in Judaism; e.g., here, here) that I hope to finish this year. My view is that because Western peoples are more individualistic (and therefore less ethnocentric), they are more prone to such views, but that in the early twentieth century a Darwinian-based movement became dominant in the social sciences and had influenced U.S. immigration policy. Darwinism was essentially destroyed by the Jewish-dominated movements discussed in CofC only to be resurrected in pale form with the publication of E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology. Nevertheless, Darwinism remains a very minor influence in the social sciences and humanities as a whole . My argument for this is presented in my review of Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America and especially in my exchange with the author.

Chapter 2: The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences • 2,400 Words

Cofnas: “MacDonald sees Boas as having been a strongly identified Jew who pursued (and distorted) science with the goal of preventing anti-Semitism.” Exactly, but I provide evidence for these claims. This is the first paragraph of the chapter:

Several writers have commented on the “radical changes” that occurred in the goals and methods of the social sciences consequent to the entry of Jews to these fields (Liebman 1973, 213; see also Degler 1991; Hollinger 1996; Horowitz 1993, 75; Rothman & Lichter 1982). Degler (1991, 188ff) notes that the shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences resulted from an ideological shift rather than from the emergence of any new empirical data. He also notes that Jewish intellectuals have been instrumental in the decline of Darwinism and other biological perspectives in American social science since the 1930s (p. 200). The opposition of Jewish intellectuals to Darwinism has long been noticed (Lenz 1931, 674; see also comments of John Maynard Smith in Lewin [1992, 43]).

Does Cofnas refute these claims? These are all reputable sources, the majority Jews. Note Degler in particular: “Boas’ influence upon American social scientists in matters of race can hardly be exaggerated.” In the following paragraph I cite Irving Horowitz on similar trends in sociology:

The advent of Jewish intellectuals in the pre–World War II period resulted in “a level of politicization unknown to sociology’s founding fathers. It is not only that the names of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim replaced those of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, but also that the sense of America as a consensual experience gave way to a sense of America as a series of conflicting definitions” (Horowitz 1993, 75). In the post–World War II period, sociology “became populated by Jews to such a degree that jokes abounded: one did not need the synagogue, the minyan [i.e., the minimum number of Jews required for a communal religious service] was to be found in sociology departments; or, one did not need a sociology of Jewish life, since the two had become synonymous” (Horowitz 1993, 77).

What is critical is the Jewish role in the shift away from Darwinism which had been the dominant paradigm. The long-range effects of this shift have been of incalculable importance for the history of the West. A prime example is that the demise of Darwinism was of critical importance in intellectual arguments over immigration. For example, the American Jewish Congress cited Boas in its statement to Congress, and Boasians Ashley Montagu and Margaret Mead testified before Congressional committees, supporting racial egalitarianism. “By 1965 Senator Jacob Javits (Cong. Rec., 111, 1965, 24469) could confidently announce to the Senate during the debate on the immigration bill that ‘both the dictates of our consciences as well as the precepts of sociologists tell us that immigration, as it exists in the national origins quota system, is wrong and without any basis in reason or fact for we know better than to say that one man is better than another because of the color of his skin’” (see Chapter 7). Doing away with the national origins quota system meant that immigration in the future would not be biased toward Europe. The ethnic status quo envisioned by the 1924 immigration restriction law rapidly became a distant memory.

The demise of a Darwinian paradigm was also critical to my reply to Eric Kaufmann noted above:

My view is that the eclipse of Darwinism left the ethnic defense of Anglo-America to religious and popular movements, and that these were unable to dominate elite intellectual discourse, the academic world, or the media. This left a huge opening for the triumph of the New York Intellectuals and other anti-WASPmovements of the left.

If Darwinism had won the war for the intellectual high ground, the New York Intellectuals’ and the Frankfurt School’s implicit ideological message that WASPs had a moral imperative to give up hegemony would have been a non-starter. That’s why I (along with scholars like George Stocking and Carl Degler) emphasize Boas—his triumph in academic anthropology sealed the fate of Darwinism.

ORDER IT NOW

Cofnas complains that my chapter as a whole “suggest[s] that Boasians were the first to romanticize primitive cultures as “idyllic” and not subject to the ills of Western civilization. In reality, by Boas’s time this had been a major theme among many gentile intellectuals for more than 150 years.” But from the above, it’s obvious that this is irrelevant. The point is that the Darwinian paradigm had been eradicated from the social sciences. No Darwinian would romanticize non-Western societies, and indeed, in Chapter 2 I note that a result of the triumph of the Boasians was that

when Harry Turney-High published his volume Primitive Warfare in 1949 documenting the universality of warfare and its oftentimes awesome savagery, the book was completely ignored by the anthropological profession—another example of the exclusionary tactics used against dissenters among the Boasians and characteristic of the other intellectual movements reviewed in this volume as well. Turney-High’s massive data on non-Western peoples conflicted with the image of them favored by a highly politicized profession whose members simply excluded these data entirely from intellectual discourse. The result was a “pacified past” (Keeley 1996, 163ff) and an “attitude of self-reproach” (p. 179) in which the behavior of primitive peoples was bowdlerized while the behavior of European peoples was not only excoriated as uniquely evil but also as responsible for all extant examples of warfare among primitive peoples. From this perspective, it is only the fundamental inadequacy of European culture that prevents an idyllic world free from between-group conflict.

I am well aware that there is a long history of romanticizing non-Western peoples. However, such views had lost out to the Darwinians, only to be resurrected by an intellectual movement dominated by strongly identified Jews with a sense of pursuing Jewish interests:

As [Gelya] Frank (1997, 731) points out, “The preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations has been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline.” Jewish identifications and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the “invisible subject” of American anthropology—invisible because the ethnic identifications and ethnic interests of its advocates have been masked by a language of science in which such identifications and interests were publicly illegitimate.

Cofnas does not dispute my evidence that Boas was a strongly identified Jew who saw his work as combatting anti-Semitism and that he was motivate by his hatred for the Prussian aristocracy.

Regarding Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict, the first point to make is that whatever their motivations, they do not cast doubt on the basic thesis of the chapter—that the shift away from Darwinism was fundamentally a project of Boas and his disciples. None of the intellectual movements reviewed in CofC was composed exclusively of Jews, and I discuss the issue of the motivation of non-Jews who were involved in these movements in several places, essentially proposing three compatible reasons: identification with a group that sees itself as oppressed, evolutionarily influenced social learning mechanisms in which prominent individuals are looked up to and admired, and the material rewards available to those who sign on to the movement (see Chapter 1).

I have expanded on these ideas in an article “Why are Professors Liberals” in which I use the work of Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse as a framework for understanding the characteristics of successful intellectual movements.[10]Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse, “Why are professors liberal? Theory and Society 4 (2012): 127–168.

(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.

It will be readily seen that CofC provides evidence in support of all three of these criteria for the movements I discuss . Moreover, a thesis of “Why Are Professors Liberals” is that shortly after the Jewish ascendancy in academia in the 1960s other groups with grievances against American culture were recruited to form various departments composed mainly of activists against their particular complaint (women’s and gender studies, ethnic studies). Similarly, outside academia Jewish groups have made a major project of making alliances with non-White groups to advance their interests in multicultural America.

However, not everyone need have a complaint. In Chapter 2 I cite Carl Degler on Boasian Alfred Kroeber: “In contrast to the ideological and political basis of Boas’s motivation, Kroeber’s militant environmentalism and defense of the culture concept was ‘entirely theoretical and professional’ (Degler 1991, 90).”

Despite Cofnas’s claims, there is evidence that Boas “recruited gentiles into his movement out of concern ‘that his Jewishness would make his science appear partisan and thus compromised,’” citing John M. Efron’s Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-Siècle Europe.[11]John M. Efron, Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-Siècle Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 180. The same can be said of Freud (in the words of one scholar “To put it very crudely, Freud needed a goy” [(Chapter 4, 114]) and many on the radical left (who often felt out of place in what was essentially a Jewish milieu; Chapter 3, 71–72).

So we may assume that Boas was quite happy to have Mead as the face of his movement. Both Mead and Benedict were sexual non-conformists (and lovers) and may well have been motivated mainly by their perception of American sexual mores as oppressive or by their perception that in general American society discriminated against women. Mead was also very ambitious and may well have seen Boas as someone who could promote her career—as indeed he did. I quote Benedict as saying we should study other cultures in order “to pass judgment on the dominant traits of our own civilization”— quite possibly a plea for tolerance for homosexuality.

In any case, I never claim that Mead and Benedict were Boas’s “puppets.” I do claim that Mead did shoddy, even dishonest work, citing several sources, and that the Samoan society that emerges from these other sources is far more compatible with evolutionary perspectives on sexuality.

Cofnas moves on to my discussion of the role of Jews in creating a taboo on research on race differences: “MacDonald ignores the fact that influential gentiles have been well represented among environmentalists studying race differences in intelligence, and Jews have been clearly overrepresented among prominent hereditarians.” This distorts the view presented in Chapter 2. As a developmental psychologist and a theorist of culture from an evolutionary perspective, I have always accepted the importance of environmental influence, and I noted that there are prominent Jews among hereditarians and non-Jews who are critics of hereditarian positions. I acknowledge

the very important contributions of these [Jewish] developmental psychobiologists and their emphasis on the role of the environment in behavioral development—a tradition that remains influential within developmental psychology in the writings of several theorists, including Alan Fogel, Richard Lerner, Arnold Sameroff, and Esther Thelen. Moreover, it must be recognized that several Jews have been important contributors to evolutionary thinking as it applies to humans as well as human behavioral genetics, including Daniel G. Freedman, Richard Herrnstein, Seymour Itzkoff [the editor of the Praeger series that included my trilogy], Irwin Silverman, Nancy Segal, Lionel Tiger, and Glenn Weisfeld. Of course, non-Jews have been counted among the critics of evolutionary-biological thinking. Nevertheless, the entire episode [surrounding the critique of Konrad Lorenz and ethology] clearly indicates that there are often important human interests that involve Jewish identity and that influence scientific debate. The suggestion here is that one consequence of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy has been to skew these debates in a manner that has impeded progress in the biological and social sciences. (p. 38)

Notice that I included Richard Herrnstein in this list. Cofnas writes: “Instead of accepting that Herrnstein is an example that does not support his thesis, MacDonald spins the facts by implying that Herrnstein supported the theory of race differences in intelligence because it would promote his ethnic interests.”

Two points: I wrote that Herrnstein was “an important contributor to … human behavior genetics.” And as I have said repeatedly, I am not claiming all Jews engaged in science identify strongly as Jews, or are on the same page as all other Jewish scientists, or seek to advance Jewish interests, or that all Jews are motivated by their Jewish identity in the same way. In the preface to the paperback edition I did indeed cite Alan Ryan to suggest that Herrnstein may have had a Jewish motivation, but notice how tentatively I phrase it:

In the case of one of those I mention, Richard J. Herrnstein, Alan Ryan (1994, 11) writes, “Herrnstein essentially wants the world in which clever Jewish kids or their equivalent make their way out of their humble backgrounds and end up running Goldman Sachs or the Harvard physics department.” This is a stance that is typical, I suppose, of neo-conservatism, a Jewish movement I discuss in several places, and it is the sort of thing that, if true, would suggest that Herrnstein did perceive the issues discussed in The Bell Curve as affecting Jewish interests in a way that Charles Murray, his co-author, did not.

I am not making a strong claim here. I certainly do not take Ryan’s comment as showing what Herrnstein’s motives were—only that if true, they would suggest that. Herrnstein’s case would require much more evidence to be included as an example suitable for CofC. Moreover, nothing rides on Herrnstein’s motives for doing what I regard as excellent research. In Chapter 2 he is listed as a prominent Jewish social scientist who does not fit the framework of CofC, and I am happy to leave it at that.

Regarding Cofnas’s list of prominent hereditarians, I accept that Jews have been prominent among hereditarians. The question is whether the actions of those who opposed hereditarian perspectives were the result of specifically Jewish identification and motivation and how effective they were in combatting hereditarianism. Nothing Cofnas says vitiates my claim that Stephen Jay Gould, Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin, Richard Lerner, and Steven Rose (reinforced by academic activists like Jerry Hirsch’s protégé Barry Mehler who has been an effective force in combatting “academic racism”) were very influential. Chapter 2 has a long section on Gould’s Jewish identification, as well as his scientific malfeasance and even outright fraud. Gould’s vast influence is beyond question, not only in academia (where his books have often been used in courses) but also in the popular arena as a result of his 300 essays in Natural History. In addition to numerous academic honors and awards, he was named a Living Legend by the U.S. Library of Congress in 2000.

Chapter 4: Jewish Involvement in the Psychoanalytic Movement • 1,500 Words

The thesis of Chapter 4:

The thesis of this chapter is that it is impossible to understand psychoanalysis as a “science,” or more properly as a political movement, without taking into account the role of Judaism. Sigmund Freud is a prime example of a Jewish social scientist whose writings were influenced by his Jewish identity and his negative attributions regarding gentile culture as the source of anti-Semitism.

Is Cofnas successful in refuting this thesis? Note that he does not challenge the basic thesis of the chapter that psychoanalysis was a Jewish movement (a common view among scholars), nor does he quarrel with the assertion that Freud had a strong Jewish identity and sense of pursuing Jewish interests by subverting gentile culture. Obviously, psychoanalysis was very influential.

Regarding the lists of prominent intellectuals influenced by psychoanalysis compiled by Kadushin and Torrey, Cofnas does not dispute that they were influenced by psychoanalysis (my point for bringing it up), but he claims that most of these people were not pursuing Jewish interests as defined by Cofnas: “five of these intellectuals are, by MacDonald’s criteria, unambiguously anti-Israel and therefore opposed to Jewish interests.” Again, support for Israel is not synonymous with how individual Jews perceive Jewish interests or whether or not Jewish interests are even relevant to their writing (see above), and this was certainly not the case prior to the establishment of Israel (see above).

ORDER IT NOW

Cofnas seems to think that I suppose that all Jews influenced by psychoanalysis are political radicals (“virtually none of them [the Jews on the list of prominent intellectuals] comes close to conforming to MacDonald’s paradigm of a Jewish radical.” However, when I speak of psychoanalysis as generally linked to the left, I am not referring necessarily to the radical left. Even neoconservatism, with its roots on the Trotskyist left, has fundamentally acted to combat paleoconservatism and to move the American conservative movement to the left on key issues like immigration (see “Neoconservatism as Jewish Movement“). For example, I cite Samuel Francis: “There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions.”

Moreover, some neocons have been influenced by psychoanalysis. Cofnas emphasizes Saul Bellow and Alan Bloom, whom I discuss in the previously referenced article (see especially the quote from Francis and material on neocon attitudes toward immigration). Indeed, it’s interesting that there is an excellent fit between Bloom (and Leo Strauss) and the framework of CofC:

As depicted by Bellow [in his novel Ravelstein], Bloom emerges as the quintessential guru, surrounded by disciples—a “father” who attempts not only to direct his disciples’ careers but their personal lives as well.[12]Bellow 2000, 27. His disciples are described as “clones who dressed as he did, smoked the same Marlboros”; they were heading toward “the Promised Land of the intellect toward which Ravelstein, their Moses and their Socrates, led them.”[13]Bellow 2000, 56. “To be cut off from his informants in Washington and Paris, from his students, the people he had trained, the band of brothers, the initiates, the happy few made him extremely uncomfortable.”[14]Bellow 2000, 103. Bloom in turn is depicted as a “disciple” of the Strauss character, Felix Davarr: “Ravelstein talked so much about him that in the end I was obliged to read some of his books. It had to be done if I was to understand what [Ravelstein] was all about.”[15]Bellow 2000, 101.

Bloom’s Ravelstein is depicted as very self-consciously Jewish. … there is the acute consciousness of who is a Jew and who isn’t; all of Ravelstein’s close friends are Jews. There is an intense interest in whether non-Jews dislike Jews or have connections to fascism. And there is a fixation on the Holocaust and when it will happen again: “They kill more than half of the European Jews. … There’s no telling which corner it will come from next.”[16]Bellow 2000, 174. Ravelstein thought of Jews as displacing WASPs: He “liked to think of living in one of the tony flat buildings formerly occupied by the exclusively WASP faculty.”[17]Bellow 2000, 61.

So yes, neocons may have a psychoanalytic background (like Bellow and Bloom) and also be strongly identified Jews who are motivated by anti-WASP animus (for further examples of the latter, see my review of Jacob Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons). Moreover, the fact that Bellow and Bloom turned out to be neocons does not vitiate the data presented in Chapters 4 and 5 indicating that psychoanalysis was in general a creature (and tool) of the left. Trust me. I was in Madison during the 1960s (see “Memories of Madison“ and Chapter 3 of CofC, note 13).

Cofnas: “It is ironic that MacDonald casts Robert Silvers as a part of a nefarious Jewish Freudian movement” given that NYRB published Frederick Crews’ takedown of Freud and the psychoanalytic movement.” I’m not sure what got into Silvers to publish Crews, but note should also be made of Crews’ later comment that this was entirely anomalous and does not detract from the general influence of the NYRB in promoting psychoanalysis:

Publication in the NYRB, as Crews notes, is “almost like pet owners who had negligently or maliciously consigned their parakeet to the mercies of an ever-lurking cat” (Crews et al. 1995, 288). The implication is that publications like the NYRB and the other journals associated with the New York Intellectuals have been instrumental in propagating psychoanalytic and similar doctrines as scientifically and intellectually reputable for decades.

Cofnas claims that an incident in which Freud criticized the Jewish role in a 1929 confrontation between Jews and Arabs at the Western Wall in then-Palestine “undermines MacDonald’s caricature of Freud as a monomaniacal activist dedicated to excusing Jewish behavior and pathologizing anti-Semitism.” But it certainly doesn’t undermine the basic thesis of the chapter that Freud had a strong Jewish identity and sense of Jewish interests in promoting psychoanalysis. Cofnas acknowledges that Freud had a Jewish identity, “if only because was continually reminded of it by anti-Semites.” But it would seem to be much deeper than that:

In a 1931 letter he described himself as “a fanatical Jew,” and on another occasion he wrote that he found “the attraction of Judaism and of Jews so irresistible, many dark emotional powers, all the mightier the less they let themselves be grasped in words, as well as the clear consciousness of inner identity, the secrecy of the same mental construction” (in Gay 1988, 601). On another occasion he wrote of “strange secret longings” related to his Jewish identity (in Gay 1988, 601). … Gay (1988, 601) interprets Freud as having the belief that his identity as a Jew was the result of his phylogenetic heritage [shaped in a LaMarckian manner by Jewish history]. … Freud and his colleagues felt a sense of “racial kinship” with their Jewish colleagues and a “racial strangeness” to others (Klein 1981, 142; see also Gilman 1993, 12ff).

Freud’s hostility to Western culture is legendary as is his sense that psychoanalysis would end anti-Semitism and subvert the sexual mores of his day. For example:

[Freud] was proud of his enemies—the persecuting Roman Catholic Church, the hypocritical bourgeoisie, the obtuse psychiatric establishment, the materialistic Americans—so proud, indeed, that they grew in his mind into potent specters far more malevolent and far less divided than they were in reality. He likened himself to Hannibal, to Ahasuerus, to Joseph, to Moses, all men with historic missions, potent adversaries, and difficult fates. (Gay 1988, 604) …

[Freud] wrote of his messianic hope to achieve the “integration of Jews and anti-Semites on the soil of [psychoanalysis]” (in Gay 1988, 231), a quote clearly indicating that psychoanalysis was viewed by its founder as a mechanism for ending anti-Semitism.

“[Freud] was convinced that it was in the very nature of psychoanalytic doctrine to appear shocking and subversive.” … Peter Gay labels Freud’s work generally as “subversive” (1987, 140), his sexual ideology in particular as “deeply subversive for his time” (p. 148), and he describes his Totem and Taboo as containing “subversive conjectures” (p. 327) in its analysis of culture.

In conjunction with the other material in the chapter, I don’t need any more evidence to show that Freud fits the mold of Jewish intellectuals involved in the movements I review in CofC. I also note that “at least by 1930 Freud also became strongly sympathetic with Zionism,” indicating that his acknowledgement of a role for Jews in perhaps provoking the 1929 incident does not preclude a general attachment to Zionism as an aspect of his Jewish identity. Like many Zionists today, he may have thought that Jewish confrontations with the Arabs motivated by the “unrealistic fanaticism of our people” were not a good strategy for Jews to pursue—exactly the argument that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt make in The Israel Lobby as well as many Jewish critics of Israel who would call themselves Zionists but who advocate peace and accommodation with the Palestinians. Obviously battling Arabs in the streets of Jerusalem was far from the only strategy Zionists used; Freud may well have thought other options would be more productive.

Chapter 5: The Frankfurt School • 1,500 Words

Cofnas:

MacDonald emphasizes “the double standard in which gentile behavior inferred from high scores on the F-scale or the Ethnocentrism Scales is viewed as an indication of psychopathology, whereas precisely the same behavior is central to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy” (1988a:168). But nowhere does he present evidence that Adorno et al. approved of this behavior in Jews, which is what would be necessary for them to have a “double standard.” MacDonald just assumes that they approve of this behavior because they were Jewish.

I do not assume they approve this behavior simply because they were Jewish. The first part of the chapter goes into detail on the strong Jewish identifications of the principle figures, and it is noteworthy that the group’s most influential work, The Authoritarian Personality, was funded and published by the American Jewish Committee which is dedicated to advancing Jewish interests. Regarding Jewish identity, Max Horkheimer (1947, 161) stated that the goal of philosophy must to be vindicate Jewish history: “The anonymous martyrs of the concentration camps are the symbols of humanity that is striving to be born. The task of philosophy is to translate what they have done into language that will be heard, even though their finite voices have been silenced by tyranny.” Adorno: “much of Adorno’s later work may be viewed as a reaction to the Holocaust, as typified by his famous comment that ‘to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric’ (Adorno 1967, 34) and his question ‘whether after Auschwitz you can go on living—especially whether one who escaped by accident, one who by rights should have been killed’ (Adorno 1973, 363). Tar (1977, 158) notes that the point of the former comment is that ‘no study of sociology could be possible without reflecting on Auschwitz and without concerning oneself with preventing new Auschwitzes.’”

It’s reasonable to assume on the basis of this that Jewish identity, Jewish commitment, and the importance of Jewish continuity were much on the mind of Frankfurt School luminaries—ethnocentrism by any other name. Cofnas seems to think that I can’t make my argument without explicit statements by Frankfurt School authors to the effect that Jewish ethnocentrism is perfectly fine but the ethnocentrism of non-Jews is a pathology. But why would they do that? There are really two possibilities here: they realized it was a double standard but didn’t 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.

The latter is a real possibility. I wrote a chapter on self-deception in Separation and Its Discontents, noting ethnocentric people are particularly prone to self-deception on issues related to their ethnic group. This material has since been expanded and updated by Andrew Joyce for his forthcoming volume, Talmud and Taboo (earlier online version here). The reason why I think self-deception is a real possibility is Horkheimer and Adorno’s (1944/1990) Dialectic of Enlightenment (discussed here, 160ff). The theory of anti-Semitism presented there is so obviously bizarre, so obviously propaganda, so completely outside of any scientific sensibility of the need to find supporting data, and so completely devoid of any attempt at doing historical research on the causes of anti-Jewish attitudes that it’s hard to believe anyone could conceive of it without an element of self-deception. Within this theory, “the continuation and acceptance of Jewish particularism becomes a precondition for the development of a utopian society of the future”—a society free of anti-Jewish attitudes because the pathology of anti-Semitism has been eradicated. In a psychoanalytic tour de force, the pathology of anti-Semitism is conceived as resulting from the suppression of nature resulting in projections of various kinds (e.g., “The forbidden action which is converted into aggression [against Jews] is generally homosexual in nature. Through fear of castration, obedience to the father is taken to the extreme of an anticipation of castration in conscious emotional approximation to the nature of a small girl, and actual hatred to the father is suppressed.”)

Thus the behavior of Jews is completely irrelevant to anti-Semitism. Judaism would continue as it always had, as a group apart, while non-Jews would overcome anti-Jewish attitudes by emulating the supposed Jewish embrace of the natural: “Happiness without power, wages without work, a home without frontiers, religion without myth. These characteristics are hated by the rulers because the ruled secretly long to possess them. The rulers are only safe as long as the people they rule turn their longed-for goals into hated forms of evil.”

Of course, deception is also a possibility. Take your pick. But whatever your choice, I think it’s safe to say that the Frankfurt School did indeed have a double standard on ethnocentrism, implicitly if not explicitly. While the above makes clear that Judaism would continue after the utopian society is achieved, the same cannot be said for the group identifications of non-Jews. Thus, “in Horkheimer’s essay on German Jews (see Horkheimer 1974), the true enemy of the Jews is gentile collectivities of any kind, and especially nationalism.”

Confas then provides two examples of my alleged misrepresentation of sources. Because of the length my comments on this, I have placed them in an appendix.

ORDER IT NOW

Cofnas goes on to claim that there is no “positive evidence for my claim that the Frankfurt School members were engaging in “‘crypsis’—members of the Frankfurt School “conceal[ed] their Jewish identities . . . [and] engage[d] in massive self-deception.” And he complains about my claim that Jewish intellectual movements “typically [occur] in an atmosphere of Jewish crypsis or semi-crypsis in the sense that the Jewish political agenda [is] not an aspect of the theory and the theories themselves [have] no overt Jewish content” He then brings up Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse as counter-examples because both were critical of Israel.

I don’t see how anything Cofnas writes rebuts my claim that explicit Jewish identities and political interests are not an aspect of the theories I discuss—that the theories have no overt Jewish content. Was the Frankfurt School ideology that gentile ethnocentrism was the result of disturbed parent-child relations somehow specifically Jewish, e.g., explicitly linked to Jewish religious writings or traditional Jewish ethics? Was Freud’s Oedipal complex an explicitly Jewish proposal, applying, say, only to Jewish families?

I have already discussed the self-deception issue with regard to the Frankfurt School, as well as the point that support for Israel is not synonymous with having a strong sense of Jewish identity or sense of Jewish interests. Jews are not monolithic, and both Fromm and Marcuse grew up at a time when Zionism was not a majority view in the Jewish community for the very Jewish reason that it was thought to be dangerous because of accusations of disloyalty. Today many strongly identified Jews who are basically sympathetic to Zionism believe that Israeli actions are reckless and evil, and there is even an Haredi Jewish group, Neturei Karta, that is utterly opposed to Zionism for (Jewish) religious reasons. Do they therefore reject a Jewish identity and a sense of Jewish interests? Different Jews have different ideas of what Jewish interests are.

The important thing, as always, is to see where the power and influence lie at any particular time. Obviously, the views of Fromm, Marcuse (and Neturei Karta) have little influence at this time.

Also, regarding Fromm, in Chapter 4 I cite evidence that he “had a very strong Jewish identity (Marcus & Tar 1986, 348–350; Wiggershaus 1994, 52ff) and [like the radicals discussed in Chapter 3] he very self-consciously attempted to use psychoanalysis to further a radical political agenda.”

Finally, nothing that Cofnas writes, even if correct, vitiates the devastating conclusions I make about The Authoritarian Personality (p. 185ff). Taken as a whole, the book indeed created an upside-down world, enabled by psychoanalysis (“Psychoanalysis essentially allowed the authors to make up any story they wanted”). It was a world in which adaptive behavior in non-Jews was presented as pathological and disturbed parent-child relations were seen as a good thing because they led to rebellious children who would reject their parents’ culture. I stand by my conclusion that it is a theory that “attempts to alter gentile culture in a manner that benefits Judaism by portraying gentile group loyalties (including nationalism, Christian religious affiliation, close family relationships, high-investment parenting, and concern with social and material success) as indicators of psychiatric disorder.”

Beginning in the 1950s Jewish organizations were very active in promoting the Frankfurt School view that “negative attitudes toward groups were … not … the result of competing group interests but rather … the result of individual psychopathology (Svonkin 1997, 75). … While gentile ethnocentrism was viewed as a public health problem, the [American Jewish Congress, which funded much of this activism] fought against Jewish assimilation” (p. 259).

Chapter 3: Jews and the Left • 700 Words

In many ways, Jewish activism in the political arena on the left (that is, apart from purely intellectual movements) is the most important arena of Jewish influence, with huge ramifications in a wide range of countries, certainly including the United States and other Western societies, but also the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Jewish role in Bolshevism is particularly important, and I have added to the material in Chapter 3 in the Preface to the Paperback Edition and in my review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, focusing particularly on the immense consequences of Jewish radicalism in the twentieth century, a topic that was not emphasized in CofC with its focus on Jewish identity . This material gives further support to the thesis of Chapter 3 that in general Jews on the left retained their Jewish identity, sense of pursuing Jewish interests, and their central role on the left during the twentieth century.

Cofnas begins by complaining about my treatment of Karl Marx (see above for further comments on Marx suggesting that he did indeed fit the mold of the type of intellectual reviewed discussed in CofC).[18]I admit the citation to Jacob Katz is screwed up and am investigating. I greatly admire Katz as a historian and suspect I cited the wrong book. This sort of thing happens to everyone. Cofnas has an incorrect link to his citation of Alan Dershowitz, and repeatedly refers to CofC as published in 1988 in the body of the article, although he gets it right in the references. In any case, in Chapter 3 I note:

Whatever Marx’s views on the subject [of Jewish identification and group continuity], a critical question in the following is whether acceptance of radical, universalist ideologies and participation in radical, universalist movements are compatible with Jewish identification.

`

In other words, Marx’s views are not germane to the topic of the chapter.

Cofnas argues against my comments on Richard Pipes regarding the issue of Jewish underrepresentation in nationalist movements, even if they are anti-Semitic:

First, anti-Semitic nationalist movements generally targeted Jews regardless of their self-identity. Jews who identified as “Russian” or “Polish” would still have been discouraged, if not outright prohibited, from joining these movements as equal participants. Second, even “de-ethnicized” Jews might find it difficult to accept anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews due simply to their close contact with Jewish family and former friends.

First, earlier in the chapter, I note Pipes’ claim that “Bolsheviks of Jewish background in the czarist period did not identify as Jews, although they were perceived by gentiles as acting on behalf of Jewish interests and were subjected to anti-Semitism.” I agreed that, under such circumstances, it would be hard for such a person not to identify as a Jew on some level. For one thing, as I note, anti-Semitism tends to increase Jewish identification. Secondly, the views of anti-Jewish nationalists need not have been “caricatures” but rather more or less accurate conceptions of Jewish behavior. Given the vast overrepresentation of Jews among their enemies, it would have been natural not to trust someone with a Jewish background who offered to participate in a nationalist movement. In fact, Jews generally opposed national cultures throughout Eastern Europe during the period (here, pp. 73–76)—anti-Jewish or not, and often in leadership positions: “their love of cultural icons transcended national and ethnic boundaries in an age of popular nationalism.” Indeed, Jewish lack of attachment to national cultures has been a theme of anti-Semitism throughout the centuries, beginning with the Book of Exodus (here, 60–70), and extending to perceptions of European Jews in the early twentieth century (here, p. 142) and to concern that Jewish neoconservatives are more loyal to Israel than the United States.

But in any case—and this is the critical point, Jewish overrepresentation in anti-nationalist movements cannot be explained simply by Jewish IQ, etc.

Cofnas claims that “For MacDonald, having a strong Jewish identity appears to be the only reason not to support anti-Semitic movements,” citing this example from Chapter 3:

The [Soviet-German] nonaggression pact provoked a great deal of rationalization on the part of Jewish CPUSA [Communist Party USA] members, often involving an attempt to interpret the Soviet Union’s actions as actually benefiting Jewish interests—clearly an indication that these individuals had not given up their Jewish identities. Others continued to be members but silently opposed the party’s line because of their Jewish loyalties (1988a:73)[19]In several places, as here, Cofnas cites CofC as having been published in 1988. It was published in 1998..

It seems to me that, if the issue is being evaluated in terms of whether or not it benefits Jewish interests rather than the interests of the country as a whole, this evident rationalization makes my point. However, the other example cited by Cofnas is indeed unclear exactly what the motives of the Jewish-Polish communists were. But this is cherry-picking. If read in the context of the entire section (pp. 60–68), the Jewish identifications of these communists come through clearly, so it becomes implausible that their concern about the nonaggression pact was unrelated to their Jewish identity when Jewish identity was so salient in other areas. The same can be said for Jewish involvement in the Communist Party–USA (CPUSA; see p. 72ff). For example:

In the following years [i.e., after 1925 when there was a “mass exodus” of Jews from the party after ethnic sections were abolished], Jewish support for the CPUSA rose and fell depending on party support for specific Jewish issues. During the 1930s the CPUSA changed its position and took great pains to appeal to specific Jewish interests, including a primary focus against anti-Semitism, supporting Zionism and eventually Israel, and advocating the importance of maintaining Jewish cultural traditions. As in Poland during this period, “The American radical movement glorified the development of Jewish life in the Soviet Union. . . . The Soviet Union was living proof that under socialism the Jewish question could be solved” (Kann 1981, 152–153). Communism was thus perceived as “good for Jews.” Despite temporary problems caused by the Soviet-German nonaggression pact of 1939, the result was an end to the CPUSA’s isolation from the [mainstream] Jewish community during World War II and the immediate postwar years. (p. 73)

Finally, Cofnas makes the following criticism:

MacDonald leaves out a key fact noted by Schatz (1991:225), which is that 40% of the victims of the secret police were Jewish. Since the Jewish population of Poland at the time was miniscule (less than half of 1% of the population in 1949; see Schatz 1991:208), Jews were extremely disproportionately likely to be attacked by the security service. These data are more consistent with the thesis that Jews were simply more likely to be in positions of power—more likely to be in the position to persecute others, and more likely to be perceived as rivals by those in power, so more likely to be persecuted. There is no convincing evidence supporting the tale of Jews qua Jews victimizing gentiles for revenge on a significant scale.

Unfortunately, Schatz doesn’t explain why Jews were targeted by the security forces but cites an article by Wlodzimierz Rozenbaum[20]Wlodzimierz Rozenbaum, “The Background of the Anti-Zionist Campaign of 1967–68 in Poland,” Essays in History 17 (1972–1973): 70–96. that is generally congruent with Schatz’s treatment. In his treatment, over the period from around 1949 to 1968 Jews were targeted because they were seen as overrepresented in the government. Even in 1947 Deputy Prime Minister Wladyslaw Gomulka, who was eventually removed due to “nationalist deviation,” approved a request by the Minister the Public Security (secret police) to replace Jewish personnel with “true” Poles, a policy he (Gomulka) claimed had been approved by Stalin; however there is no indication of whether this was carried out. Many Jewish communists had joined the government in the immediate aftermath of the war, as Schatz also notes, but beginning in 1949 they began to be “systematically eliminated from important positions in the Party apparatus, the administration, and in the armed forces.”[21]Ibid., 76.
(Wlodzimierz Rozenbaum, “The Background of the Anti-Zionist Campaign of 1967–68 in Poland,” Essays in History 17 (1972–1973): 70–96.)
The forty percent Jewish victims figure comes from a 1956 report on the military secret police which also noted that there were only a few Jews in that organization at that time.[22]Ibid.
(Wlodzimierz Rozenbaum, “The Background of the Anti-Zionist Campaign of 1967–68 in Poland,” Essays in History 17 (1972–1973): 70–96.)
These trends paralleled trends in the Soviet Union at the time, and accelerated after Stalin’s death (e.g., Nikita Khrushchev’s remark that “you have already too many Abramoviches” (in Schatz 1991, 272).

From 1955–57 this continued, with Jews who had held powerful positions in the post-war period being targeted by Stalinists who blamed them for abuses during this period and appealed popular hatred for “Jewish rule” to rally public opinion against liberalizing tendencies (favored by Jews). After a spate of emigration, by 1957 only 25000 Jews remained in Poland, but the trend to remove Jews from positions of power continued, followed by “the all-out purge of 1967–1968.”[23]Ibid., 83.
(Wlodzimierz Rozenbaum, “The Background of the Anti-Zionist Campaign of 1967–68 in Poland,” Essays in History 17 (1972–1973): 70–96.)
At the end, Jews were targeted because of or (more likely) on the pretext of their Zionist sympathies in the context of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Thus Jews were increasingly victimized by the government and security forces from 1949–1968 because of their prominent positions in the government—an account in agreement with the material I cite from Schatz. If there is one thing Jews have learned, it’s that no system of government is guaranteed to be resistant to anti-Jewish attitudes. The main story line is the gradual triumph of Polish nationalism at the expense of Jewish power. Similarly, after being a dominant elite in the Soviet Union beginning with the Bolshevik Revolution and extending at least well into the 1930s (and really until after World War II), Jewish power declined, Jews were purged from positions of power, and Jews ultimately became leaders of the refusenik movement aimed at being able to emigrate from the USSR.

ORDER IT NOW

However, it’s a mistake for Cofnas to claim that “these data are more consistent with the thesis that Jews were simply more likely to be in positions of power—more likely to be in the position to persecute others, and more likely to be perceived as rivals by those in power, so more likely to be persecuted.”

Jews were indeed more likely to be in positions of power, but their positions in power had much more to do with their Jewish identity than with other Jewish traits like IQ. For example, Schatz is quite clear that the criteria for acceptance into the security forces had to do with Jewish issues:

To begin with, there was the basic fact of the general society’s hostility toward the regime and the latter’s need for trusted cadres. Old communists, among them the generation [i.e., the core group of Jewish communists central to the Polish Communist Party since before World War II] had to be relied on as the core. They were joined by other Jews who were not pre-war communists, but whom the regime could rely on because of their sympathies for the new political system and because of their isolation and exposed position in the wider society. (225)

Thus, because of anti-Jewish attitudes in the wider society (at least partly due to the perception that Jews were vastly more likely to favor the hated communist government than Poles and because of their prominent positions in the government), they were disproportionately likely to be recruited. The same goes for other positions in the government (see pp. 67–68; e.g.: “Jews who had severed formal ties with the Jewish community, or who had changed their names to Polish-sounding names, or who could pass as Poles because of their physical appearance or lack of a Jewish accent were favored in promotions”). It this very large overrepresentation of Jews in the immediate post-war period due to their ethnic connections that was gradually unraveled until the final denouement in 1968.

In the immediate post-war period the security forces acted against Polish nationalists, not Jews — “the destruction of the nationalist political opposition whose openly expressed anti-Semitism derived at least partly from the fact that Jews were perceived as favoring Soviet domination. … Moreover, the general opposition between the Jewish-dominated Polish communist government supported by the Soviets and the nationalist, anti-Semitic underground helped forge the allegiance of the great majority of the Jewish population to the communist government while the great majority of non-Jewish Poles favored the anti-Soviet parties” (Schatz 1991, 204–205). (65)

Confas concludes: “There is no convincing evidence supporting the tale of Jews qua Jews victimizing gentiles for revenge on a significant scale.” But the material from Rozenbaum does not contradict Schatz on this point. As noted above, Jewish identity facilitated recruitment into the security forces. And once in the security forces, Jews were motivated by specifically Jewish motives:

Their families had been murdered and the anti-Communist underground was, in their perception, a continuation of essentially the same anti-Semitic and anti-Communist tradition. They hated those who had collaborated with the Nazis and those who opposed the new order with almost the same intensity and knew that as Communists, or as both Communists and Jews, they were hated at least in the same way. In their eyes, the enemy was essentially the same. The old evil deeds had to be punished and new ones prevented and a merciless struggle was necessary before a better world could be built. (Schatz 1991, 226)

Seems like revenge to me. Polish nationalists were seen as no different than the Nazis who had murdered their families.

Finally, Cofnas never challenges the fundamental thesis of the chapter—that Jewish radicals retained their Jewish identity and sense of pursuing Jewish interests.

Chapter 7: “Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy” • 2,000 Words

As noted above, writing the chapter on immigration was a game-changer for me because the policies inaugurated by the 1965 immigration law and similar laws throughout the West have resulted in demographic transformations that will make the Western peoples minorities in lands they have dominated for hundreds, and in the case of Europe, for thousands of years.

My view that individual influential Jews and Jewish organizations were the most influential force—a necessary condition—for the passage of the law has received support from historians Hugh Davis Graham and Otis Graham who emphasize the importance of Jewish influence in the executive branch of the government (I focused on Congress). This is how Hugh Davis Graham summarized it in his 2002 book Collision Course (pp. 56–57):

Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s. . . . Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

The most important point here is that Cofnas does not dispute the central role of Jews and Jewish organizations in passage of the immigration law of 1965.

Cofnas begins by complaining about my treatment of John Dewey: MacDonald “argues that Dewey was being manipulated by his less famous, albeit Jewish, student, Sidney Hook.” However, I did mention that Hook was Dewey’s student and never said that Dewey was being “manipulated,” only that he was being promoted by an intellectual who achieved a great deal of prominence and influence as a New York Intellectual (I discuss the New York Intellectuals in Chapter 6, including material on Hook’s strong Jewish identity and sense of pursuing Jewish interests). I have no doubt that Dewey was sincere in his beliefs—beliefs that were very attractive to the Jewish intellectual ascendency. The same goes for Cofnas’s assertion that I claim that Margaret Mead was a “puppet” of Boas. As indicated above, I have no doubt that her beliefs were sincere.

Cofnas’s treatment of my comments on Dewey ignores my citations of David Hollinger, perhaps the premier historian of U.S. intellectual history. “Hollinger (1996, 4) notes “the transformation of the ethnoreligious demography of American academic life by Jews,” and specifically with respect to Dewey:

“If lapsed Congregationalists like Dewey did not need immigrants to inspire them to press against the boundaries of even the most liberal of Protestant sensibilities, Dewey’s kind were resoundingly encouraged in that direction by the Jewish intellectuals they encountered in urban academic and literary communities” (Hollinger 1996, 24).

While Jews promoted people like Dewey whose views resonated with theirs, they worked to destroy the reputations of intellectuals whose views they disapproved. In particular, Jewish intellectuals were successful in opposing the work of populist intellectuals and artists (discussed in Chapter 5 and in my review of Eric Kaufmann mentioned above). Andrew Joyce and Brenton Sanderson have made major contributions in this area, with essays on Jewish attempts to destroy the reputations of T. S. Eliot, Robinson Jeffers, Ezra Pound, and Richard Wagner. On the other hand, Jewish intellectual activism has been central in promoting the work not only of the intellectuals reviewed in CofC, but also the reputation of Baruch Spinoza who is now being promoted by Jewish academic activists as the philosopher without whom the Enlightenment never would have happened.

Regarding Cofnas’s comments on Madison Grant, he was indeed a Nordicist advocating for people like himself—an attitude that is certainly not foreign to Jews. However, to claim that “Jews were effectively promoting, not undermining, white unity” (his emphasis) is a stretch to say the least. Even during the 1920s and before (e.g., unanimous opposition in the Jewish press to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882; see p. 283), Jews promoted immigration from all of humanity.

In 1920 the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed a resolution urging that “the Nation . . . keep the gates of our beloved Republic open . . . to the oppressed and distressed of all mankind in conformity with its historic role as a haven of refuge for all men and women who pledge allegiance to its laws” (in The American Hebrew, Oct. 1, 1920, 594). The American Hebrew (Feb. 17, 1922, 373), a publication founded in 1867, to represent the German-Jewish establishment of the period, reiterated its long-standing policy that it “has always stood for the admission of worthy immigrants of all classes, irrespective of nationality.” And in his testimony at the 1924 hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, the AJCommittee’s Louis Marshall stated that the bill echoed the sentiments of the Ku Klux Klan; he characterized it as inspired by the racialist theories of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. At a time when the population of the United States was over 100 million, Marshall stated, “[W]e have room in this country for ten times the population we have”; he advocated admission of all of the peoples of the world without quota limit, excluding only those who “were mentally, morally and physically unfit, who are enemies of organized government, and who are apt to become public charges.” Similarly, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, representing the AJCongress and a variety of other Jewish organizations at the House Hearings, asserted “the right of every man outside of America to be considered fairly and equitably and without discrimination.”

Far from promoting “White unity,” Jewish activists were promoting making Whites a small minority in a country that they had established and dominated for 150 years.

Cofnas claims that I am incorrect in attributing “hypocrisy” to American Jews because they support immigration and diversity in the U.S. but not Israel in Chapter 8. However, I never mention hypocrisy in that chapter but am only interested in describing the “disparities” in policies advocated by Jews in the two countries. This is the quotation (from Chapter 8) that Cofnas is disputing (including additional material in order to clarify the context):

Notice that American Jews have had no interest in proposing that immigration to Israel should be similarly multiethnic, or that Israel should have an immigration policy that would threaten the hegemony of Jews. I rather doubt that Oscar Handlin (1952, 7) would extend his statement advocating immigration from all ethnic groups into the United States by affirming the principle that all men, being brothers, are equally capable of being Israelis. I also doubt that the Synagogue Council of America would characterize Israeli immigration law as “a gratuitous affront to the peoples of many regions of the world” (PCIN 1953, 117). Indeed, the ethnic conflict within Israel indicates a failure to develop a universalist Western culture.

I go on to discuss the “disparities” (not hypocrisy) between attitudes toward immigration of American Jews versus Israeli Jews. The simplest explanation of this disparity is that in general Jewish perceptions of their interests differ dramatically depending on whether they are a solid majority of a country or a small minority. What’s good for the Jews depends on context—hardly surprising.

Regarding immigration to Israel, Cofnas writes:

the claim that immigration to Israel is restricted to Jews—even nominal Jews—was and is false. Since 1970, Israel will give automatic citizenship to anyone with one Jewish grandparent and their non-Jewish spouse and children (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2013). Hundreds of thousands of gentiles were granted Israeli citizenship because of this policy (Felter 2009). (An exact estimate is difficult to give since Israelis with no Jewish ancestors, or only a distant one, may identify as Jewish in surveys.)

Jewish immigrants to Israel must establish their “Jewish roots” which typically involves documentation of family history. Recently there was a rabbinic ruling that Ashkenazi Jews could use DNA to prove that they are Jews, a particular problem for Jews who emigrated from the former Soviet Union. Imagine a U.S. law that allowed only people of who could establish a European family history and their spouses and children to immigrate to the U.S. and allowed the use of genetic testing to confirm European ancestry. I may be going out on a limb here, but I’m thinking every Jewish organization in America would be up in arms.

Realize also that historically, marriage in Israel has been controlled by the Orthodox rabbinate. A 2013 law liberalized marriage somewhat, but there is still an Orthodox monopoly on marriage and divorce in Israel, and converts still suffer some disabilities, mainly because non-Orthodox conversions are not recognized:

Some Israeli supporters of marriage liberalization remained skeptical despite the passage of the law.

“The law won’t help more than 300,000 immigrants who are defined [under Israeli law] as ‘without religion.’ It also won’t help Reform and Conservative converts who are recognized as Jews by the state, but not by the rabbinate,” noted Rabbi Uri Regev, a Reform rabbi and director of Hiddush, a group advocating an end to the Orthodox monopoly in Israel’s state rabbinate.

Regarding Alan Dershowitz’s advocacy of Ethiopian migration to Israel: again, different Jews see Jewish interests differently. Some Jewish advocates for Ethiopian migration may see refusal to admit Ethiopians as indicating Israeli policy is racist and that it would destroy the idea that Judaism is simply a matter of religious belief—both of which would tend to give Israel a poor image in the West which is a vital pillar of support for Israel. As I have repeatedly noted here, one has to look at where the power is and pay close attention to divisions within the Jewish community Moreover, using Cofnas’s estimates, Ethiopian Jews constitute only a little over 2% of the population and thus may not be seen as a serious threat to the demographic status quo. And it’s worth pointing out that Ethiopian Jews have not been welcomed by many Israelis and remain on the fringes of Israeli society. A BBC report from 2015: “when they arrived in Israel, these distinctive people faced appalling discrimination, racism and a lack of empathy for their hardships in Ethiopia and during their journey to Israel. … Many in the religious establishment even dared to question their Judaism”; see also here and here).

ORDER IT NOW

Finally, I acknowledge very high intermarriage rates for Jews in the U.S. and that my projections of the Jewish demographic future in America, made 20 years ago on the basis of my reading, are not holding up. However, this should be placed in context. These trends do not signal the death knell of ethnic Judaism. First, a major goal of Zionism during the early decades of the twentieth century was to prevent intermarriage and assimilation (here, p. 157), and in large measure that has succeeded in Israel. Secondly, to my knowledge, the leadership of the American Jewish community remains ethnically Jewish. Third, intermarriage and conversion have benefits for the Jewish community (e.g., here), including the advantages of marrying into prominent non-Jewish families, such as the families of presidents Trump and Clinton—a centuries-old phenomenon. Some authors have suggested that relatively high rates of intermarriage, low fertility, and the various levels of Jewish identification in the modern Western societies are highly functional for Judaism because they serve as a bridge to the surrounding culture because of family ties with non-Jews.[24]For example, Lieberman, S., & M. Weinfeld (1978). Demographic trends and Jewish survival. Midstream 24 (November): 9–19. Finally, there remains a highly fertile core of Conservative and Orthodox Jews who reject intermarriage.

Cofnas’s Conclusion • 300 Words

Cofnas: “After arguing so strenuously that liberal movements were designed to advance a Jewish group evolutionary strategy, he acknowledges that Jews are also in the vanguard in the fight against those same movements.” As noted above in discussion of the history of Jews under communism, no political system is guaranteed to serve Jewish interests, and I have written about the concern within the organized Jewish community over the immigration of groups that may not resonate with Jewish issues, particularly Muslims. As always, the Jewish community will respond to problems as they arise. In the case of Poland and the Soviet Union, that meant large-scale emigration, and Jewish emigration from France and other European countries because of Muslim anti-Semitism is already a reality.

Cofnas notes that several Jews are prominent in evolutionary psychology and as critics of “liberal social science.” This in no way invalidates anything in CofC. As noted above, there have always been Jews who do good work in the social sciences. However, I should say that I disagree with Pinker’s orthodox version of evolutionary psychology (“massive modularity”) in favor of emphasizing how modular and non-modular mechanisms work together to create human culture. And for obvious reasons I have a particular complaint because of his anti-scientific approach to my work—in part responsible for my spending the last 20 years in the intellectual wilderness. Nevertheless, Pinker has moved the scientific and popular reception of behavior genetics of evolutionary perspectives forward (see., e. g., his withering criticism in The Blank Slate of three pf the figures discussed in Chapter 2 of CofC: Gould, Lewontin and Rose). And, for all I know, he is pursuing a tactical strategy of gradualism by supporting ideas that are still regarded with extreme hostility in large swaths of academia and the media in the hopes that things will eventually change, although his recent work, Enlightenment Now is not encouraging in that regard.

The rest of Cofnas’s conclusion is simply name-calling. No need to respond.

Discussion • 900 Words

Perhaps the most important message here is that the successful Jewish attack on Darwinism by the Jewish intellectual movements discussed in CoC was a pivotal moment in intellectual history, with ramifications still being felt in psychology, anthropology, sociology, criminology, gender studies, political science, and political activism on the left generally—including, in particular, immigration policy. Anti-Darwinism is really the intellectual force field that protects the whole leftist-postmodern-multiculturalist worldview and gives it a veneer of scientific credibility because it is promulgated from the most prestigious academic and media sources—a key to the success of all the movements discussed in CofC (see especially Chapter 6).

With vanishingly few exceptions, every single person in evolutionary psychology and behavior genetics has suffered personal and career costs because of this assault on Darwinism. To the academics reading this, when was the last time your psychology department advertised for a specialist in behavior genetics? When was the last time your gender or ethnic studies departments advertised for specialists in evolutionary approaches to race or sex differences? This has had the effect of limiting job opportunities for those who aspire to careers in these fields, and it prevents talented faculty fortunate to have a position from moving to more prestigious institutions.

Fundamentally, this dominant zeitgeist of the left denies the biological reality of race and sex differences and the heritability of important mental traits like IQ. I vividly recall a conversation during the 1990s with J. Philippe Rushton, who produced ground-breaking theories and research on race differences, life history theory as applied to humans, and the importance of genetic similarity for friendship, mate choice, and other examples of human assortment.[25]J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, 1st ed.(New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1994); J. Philippe Rushton, “Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity,” Nations and Nationalism 11, no. 4 (2005), 489–507. He asked: Why do we (i.e., the academic establishment) know so much less about race and race differences now than we did in the 1920s? Why has research and theorizing in this area become taboo to the point that careers are ruined, and many academics engage in self-censorship to preserve their jobs, their career prospects, and their social life? CofC and my subsequent writing (e.g., here) are an attempt to answer that.

At this time there is enormous interest centering around free speech at universities. Cofnas mentions Jonathan Haidt, whom I admire as a leader in combatting the pall of leftist, anti-Darwinian orthodoxy reigning at universities today. Haidt describes “tribal moral communities“ in academia, particularly social psychology. Like dissenters from the movements discussed in CofC, opponents of the reigning orthodoxy are seen as moral reprobates (not simply intellectually mistaken). In these tribal moral communities, research that contravenes the values of the community is held to higher standards by insisting on “hyper-purism that settles for nothing less than absolute certainty and absolutely correct methodology, epistemology, and ontology” (CofC,Chapter 2, p. 45).

Moreover, as noted in Chapter 6, all of the movements discussed in CofC were essentially morally based critiques of the West, its people and its cultures—tribal moral communities by any other name. This is also a theme of John Murray Cuddihy’s masterpiece:

It is here [i.e., the Jewish moral critique of the hypocrisy of Western society], I think, that we have a far-reaching convergence of the role of the Jewish intelligentsia for 150 years within the European system and the modernizing elite of many of the new nations: the moral passions become the ruling passions, become special pleaders. Lionel Trilling once wrote “that the moral passions are even more willful and imperious and impatient than the self-seeking passions.” It is Susan Sontag … who notes that “the Jews pinned their hopes for integrating into modern societies on promoting the moral sense.

This morally based critique is based on a pre-existing firm foundation stemming from developments in European cultures that greatly accelerated during the eighteenth century. However, the morality that is now being preached and coercively enforced as a result of the triumph of the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed in CofC is a morality of altruism for the people of the West that will, if continued, lead to the destruction of European peoples and their cultures. It is a vision of culture as motivated by an altruistic, guilt-suffused moral sense that was never envisioned by Enlightenment intellectuals or their descendants in the West until the triumph of these movements.

On the surface, Cofnas appeared to engage my work, but he didn’t really grasp the key arguments or how CofC fit into the framework of the other books in the trilogy or my other writing on evolution and culture. One suspects he had a foregone conclusion about its value—what psychologists term “motivated cognition” (which, as I attempt to demonstrate, was characteristic of the Jewish intellectuals I review in CofC). Like the hyper-purists discussed in several places in CofC, he was looking for ways to condemn research he didn’t like for deeper reasons. He understood perfectly well that a positive review would never be published. And he was deeply troubled by CofCsincreasing acceptance outside academia and by the possible political ramifications of that acceptance. He was quite aware that the silent treatment that had surrounded the book for 20 years had failed.

So now we are back at square 1. I welcome further comment and promise to respond.

Appendix • 1,600 Words

Cofnas provides a specific example of me misrepresenting sources based on this passage:

R. Nevitt Sanford (Chapter VI) finds that affiliation with various Christian religious sects is associated with ethnocentrism, and that individuals who have rebelled against their parents and adopted another religion or no religion are lower on ethnocentrism. These relationships are explained as due to the fact that acceptance of a Christian religion is associated with “conformity, conventionalism, authoritarian submission, determination by external pressures, thinking in ingroup-outgroup terms and the like vs. nonconformity, independence, internalization of values, and so forth” (p. 220).

First, let’s look at the relevant passage from The Authoritarian Personality. It is certainly true that Sanford is saying that, as I summarized it, “that individuals who have rebelled against their parents and adopted another religion or no religion are lower on ethnocentrism.” The first part of that sentence could be fleshed out to reflect some more specific findings discussed by Sanford, although note that he too has a similar general statement at the beginning of his Discussion section: “Belonging to or identifying oneself with a religious body in America today certainly does not mean that one thereby takes over the traditional Christian values of tolerance, brotherhood, and equality. On the contrary, it appears that these values are more firmly held by people who do not affiliate with any religious group.”

More specifically, however, people in minor Protestant sects (too few to properly analyze separately) and Unitarians were found to be low on E (the Ethnocentrism scale), and for the major denominations there is a great deal of variation among individuals centering around a mean in the middle of E— hardly indicative of a general pattern of extreme ethnocentrism, as Sanford notes. Nevertheless, Sanford does not dismiss the idea that being a member of a major denomination per se is problematic:

It may be argued, however, that this conventional approach to religion expresses enough identification with the status quo, submission to external authority, and readiness to emphasize moralistically the differences between those who “belong” and those who do not, to differentiate, in terms of E score, members of the large denominations from the nonreligious and from the members of those minor groups which actually stand for trends of an opposite character.

Despite this claim that even being in a large denomination gives one enough of a sense of being in an ingroup to produce higher scores on E, Sanford looks at mother’s religion in an effort to get more powerful findings. Subjects who deviate from mother’s religion are more likely to be lower on E. Religion for them is interpreted as self-chosen, whereas those who accept their mother’s religion tend to be higher on E and on the Anti-Semitism Scale. “Concerning these results as a whole, one might say that whereas religious affiliation goes with higher scores on the scales, this is less likely to be the case if the religion is ‘one’s own,’ that is to say, if it has been accepted independently of or in revolt against the main carrier of religious influence in the family … [whereas] where there are signs that the acceptance of religion has been determined primarily by conventional or external considerations, E score tends to go up.” This was found to be particularly true of women.

In other words, Sanford is proposing that the real issue is whether the religion is self-chosen as indicated by being different from the mother’s. Even among the major denominations, there may be wide variation in the extent to which subjects adopt their religion by individual choice, thus accounting for the wide variation in E scores:

But among the members of the major denominations there are many subjects whose religion would appear to be “genuine,” in the sense that it was arrived at more or less independently of external pressure and takes the form of internalized values. These subjects, it seems, tend to score low, often very low, on ethnocentrism.

In the following quotation, Sanford effectively glosses “self-chosen” as reflecting the variation in the qualities emphasized throughout The Authoritarian Personality; this quote includes the part that I quoted from in CofC (the part that I quoted is in italics):

When the problem is approached from this point of view the psychological factors which appear as most important are much the same as those which came to the fore in the preceding chapters: conformity, conventionalism, authoritarian submission, determination by external pressures, thinking in ingroup-outgroup terms, and the like vs. nonconformity, independence, internalization of values, and so forth.

So, did my quote misrepresent Sanford? Here’s Cofnas:

MacDonald cites Sanford out of context and totally misrepresents his conclusion. First, when Sanford refers to “conformity, conventionalism, authoritarian submission . . .,” he is not characterizing Christian belief. He says that to understand the relation between religion and ethnocentrism, we must consider what psychological factors play a role in the individual’s acceptance or rejection, such as “conformity, conventionalism, authoritarian submission.” He is not talking specifically about Christianity, and he says explicitly that these factors do not play a role in “genuine” Christianity. He clearly distinguishes between nominal Christians who adopt the religion of their parents or of the majority simply because they tend to submit to authority, and those “whose religion would appear to be ‘genuine,’ in the sense that it was arrived at more or less independently of external pressure and takes the form of internalized values” (Adorno et al. 1950:220). Sanford says that the latter—the “genuine” Christians—”tend to score low, often very low, on ethnocentrism.”

First, I wrote that “affiliation with various Christian religious sects is linked with ethnocentrism” (emphasis added). I am not claiming anything about “all Christian religious sects,” and therefore I am not claiming that, according to Sanford, Christian beliefs per se are the problem. Secondly, as noted, Sanford does make general statements linking Christianity with ethnocentrism: (1) the statement linking affiliation with large Christian denominations with ethnocentrism noted above—their means, after all, are considerably higher than the Unitarians and the minor Protestant sects; and (2) the statement at the beginning of the Discussion section, also noted above: “Belonging to or identifying oneself with a religious body in America today certainly does not mean that one thereby takes over the traditional Christian values of tolerance, brotherhood, and equality. On the contrary, it appears that these values are more firmly held by people who do not affiliate with any religious group” (p. 219).

ORDER IT NOW

This last statement is particularly interesting because it appears in the general summary of the chapter—the take-home message, if you will. One wonders why Sanford would make such statements if he didn’t want to convey the idea that Christian religious affiliation per se was problematic (although, again, I never claimed that Sanford was claiming that Christian belief per se was the problem: I wrote “various Christian religious sects,” not “all Christian religious sects”). It’s also noteworthy that in my comments on Chapter II of The Authoritarian Personality—also written by Sanford, the strongly identified Irishman and anti-Semite Mack is diagnosed as pathological because of his strong sense of being in an ingroup (pp, 169–170). Given that Judaism is all about having a strong sense of ingroup, I have to suppose that Sanford (who was not Jewish) was willfully ignoring some obvious realities given that he was writing for a project funded by the American Jewish Committee. Without a strong sense of being an ingroup, Judaism would have died out long ago.

In the contested passage, I essentially cut to the chase: I did not recount Sanford’s discussion of how he ends up concluding that whether the subject accepted mother’s religion is the most important variable, or his suggestion that low E scorers among the major denominations may have self-chosen their religion for other reasons. Instead, I went directly from claiming that Sanford had claimed that “affiliation with various Christian religious sects is associated with ethnocentrism, and that individuals who have rebelled against their parents and adopted another religion or no religion are lower on ethnocentrism” to Sanford’s conclusion that variation in E was linked to those traits emphasized by the book as a whole: “conformity, conventionalism, authoritarian submission, determination by external pressures, thinking in ingroup-outgroup terms, and the like vs. nonconformity, independence, internalization of values, and so forth.” Clearly, I did emphasize the basic points: that Sanford concluded that rebellion against parents was important, and I implied that Christian religious belief per se was not the problem.

So I really don’t see where I misrepresented anything.

Cofnas continues:

Second, Sanford characterizes traditional Christianity in a positive, not a negative, way. He refers to “Christian humanism which works against prejudice” (Adorno et al. 1950:215). He writes that “in America today,” the “traditional Christian values of tolerance, brotherhood, and equality” appear to be “more firmly held by people who do not affiliate with any religious group,” though “genuine” Christians low in ethnocentrism “probably predominate in [certain] Protestant denominations” (Adorno et al. 1950:219–20). Thus Sanford identifies the values promoted by the Frankfurt School with Christianity, not Judaism.

Again, I never claimed that Sanford claimed that Christian beliefs per se were the problem. Otherwise, why would the mean E scores for Unitarians and members of minor Protestant sects be so low, and why would so many members of the major denominations be low on E? But Sanford is clearly saying that despite these traditional Christian values and an ideal of “Christian humanism,” Christians in 1940s’ America did not in general have these values. Clearly, he is indicting Christianity as it actually existed, although he certainly recognizes that there are exceptions.

Finally, whether one believes that I misrepresented Sanford’s chapter, it does nothing to alter my general comments on the Frankfurt School.

Footnotes • 700 Words

[1] Kevin MacDonald ([email protected]) is Professor Emeritus of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

[2] For example, cultural group selection is a commonly held view of members of the Cultural Evolution Society. My theorizing going back to the early 1980s has always emphasized cultural factors, particularly social controls and ideology in regulating behavior, beginning with work on the maintenance of monogamy in European culture (e.g, here). This progressed to a discussion of the Spartans as exhibiting what I later termed a group evolutionary strategy (in Chapter 8 of Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (New York: Plenum, 1988). I then decided to do a similar treatment of Judaism and began research on it in 1991.

[3] Cofnas makes the following claim:

The strategy employed 18 years ago—declaring his work to be anti-Semitic and/or to not reach the threshold to warrant scholarly attention—had the doubly unfortunate effect of intimidating scholars with a legitimate interest in the topic of Jewish evolution and behavior, and creating a perception among some laypeople—even if it was false—that MacDonald was being persecuted by the academic community.

In fact, I was being persecuted by the academic community by any ordinary meaning of the term. Following the Shulevitz controversy mentioned by Cofnas, I was on a panel devoted to my work at the 2000 meetings of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society. It was quite raucous, with a lot of very vocal opposition to my work, followed by cold shoulders from other officers and other prominent members of the society (I held the office of Secretary at the time). I never felt welcome thereafter. And although I was blackballed at least once at a prestigious academic journal, I did manage to continue to publish my work on personality, developmental psychology, evolutionary theory of culture, and the evolution of intelligence in reputable, even prominent academic venues. More painful were events at my university beginning in 2006–07 following a visit by Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center, later joined by a representative of the Anti-Defamation League. This began a process of ostracism and intense hostility from many CSULB faculty, expressed on faculty email listservs maintained by the university, as well as condemnatory resolutions by academic departments and the Academic Senate.

[4] Frank K Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Kinship in an Age of Mass Migration (London: Routledge, 2006).

[5] Richard Alexander, Darwinism and Human Affairs (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1979; as applied to Jewish groups, see here, p. 5 and Chapter 1 of A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy.

[6] John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity (New York: Basic Books, 1974). I corresponded with Cuddihy toward the end of his life. He was very happy to see that I had found his work useful, which I interpreted as suggesting that he felt that his book had been ignored and hadn’t received the attention it deserved. Perhaps the fact that he had written a brilliant book on post-Emancipation Jewry only to see it essentially ignored by later scholars had a role in my decision to continue to promote my work outside an academic setting.

[7] Ibid., 160–161.

[8] Ibid., 184.

[9] Ibid., 231; emphasis in original.

[10] Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse, “Why are professors liberal? Theory and Society 4 (2012): 127–168.

[11] John M. Efron, Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-Siècle Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 180.

[12] Bellow 2000, 27.

[13] Bellow 2000, 56.

[14] Bellow 2000, 103.

[15] Bellow 2000, 101.

[16] Bellow 2000, 174.

[17] Bellow 2000, 61.

[18] I admit the citation to Jacob Katz is screwed up and am investigating. I greatly admire Katz as a historian and suspect I cited the wrong book. This sort of thing happens to everyone. Cofnas has an incorrect link to his citation of Alan Dershowitz, and repeatedly refers to CofC as published in 1988 in the body of the article, although he gets it right in the references.

[19] In several places, as here, Cofnas cites CofC as having been published in 1988. It was published in 1998.

[20] Wlodzimierz Rozenbaum, “The Background of the Anti-Zionist Campaign of 1967–68 in Poland,” Essays in History 17 (1972–1973): 70–96.

[21] Ibid., 76.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 83.

[24] For example, Lieberman, S., & M. Weinfeld (1978). Demographic trends and Jewish survival. Midstream 24 (November): 9–19.

[25] J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, 1st ed.(New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1994); J. Philippe Rushton, “Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity,” Nations and Nationalism 11, no. 4 (2005), 489–507.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Academia, Anti-Semitism, Jews, Kevin MacDonald 
Hide 221 CommentsLeave a Comment
221 Comments to "Reply to Nathan Cofnas"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Ovidiu says:

    Cofnas does not understand Kevin MacDonald’s thesis. He seems to believe that Kevin MacDonald infers that these movements were promoting Jewish interests merely from the “over-representation” fact. Hence his “alternative hypothesis” attempt at rebuttal

    But strong Jewish presence (over representation), and also strong Jewish identity in their case, are for Kevin MacDonald merely two ‘necessary conditions’; as it would be hard to see how otherwise such an intellectual movement could be a Jewishly motivated movement.
    The third and sufficient one is the very content of the theories pushed. Their impact on the Gentile society seen through the prism of the Gentile-Jew conflict and the social-identity theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. I don’t see much new in Kevin MacDonald’s response to Confas’ critique (which is, by the way, too limited & ahistorical). MacDonald has just re-iterated his old claims:

    * Jews “follow group evolutionary strategy”. He didn’t prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No “strategy” in such a behavior.

    * also, the author’s description of “Jewish movements” is non-verifiable & actually difficult to describe. From what I know of Marxism, psychoanalysis or Leninism- these were not “Jewish” movements, neither in intellectual genesis nor with regard to their proponents.
    What about other intellectual currents, prominent in 20th & 21st C? Do these movements or cultural currents qualify as “Jewish”: anarchism, free-love leftism, Expressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, German phenomenology in philosophy, cultural critique (Derrida & Foucault following Heidegger), New Left with its post-1968 ideology, multiculturalism as ideology, Jungian archetypal psychology, New Age ideologies, radical Feminism, “New Atheism”, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, various schools of economics (Austrian, Chicago,..), structuralism in humanities, ..?
    I know next to nothing on Boasian anthropology, but I do know quite a lot about Communism & various branches of psychoanalysis, and I don’t see how one can show these movement are “Jewish” in origin or history? For instance, except for being Austrian Jew, what is “Jewish” in early, Freudian variant of psychoanalysis? This “school” was a product of German culture during fin de siecle & the general knowledge of psychiatry during these times. What is “Jewish” in its structure, values or general trend, in its goals, or in its map of human psyche?

    * what about areas where ethnic Jews are over-represented in 20th & 21st fields: theoretical physics, all branches of mathematics, chess masters, computer science, violin virtuosi, philanthropists in arts & curators of museums, film directors & producers, ..? Are these areas somehow driven by Jewish interests, whether conscious or not? How can we ascertain this?

    Although I admire MacDonald’s work in demolition of maudlin myth the core American Jewish community has over time built about it (eternal victims & universal humanitarians), I don’t see his work as dispassionate analysis that would be close to even such a non-exact “science” as evolutionary psychology claims to be. With its broad sweep of generalizations, MacDonald’s work on historical traits of Judaism (as culture) is not unlike other historiosophies, similar to St. Augustine, Gioacchino da Fiore, Hegel, Marx or Spengler.

    There are insights in these works- but they are basically an imaginative construction, not more.

    That said, I am sorry MacDonald’s work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse, but to dumbification of academia- there is not such thing as intellectual discourse anymore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @perun500
    You clearly haven't read the response or any of Macdonalds other work at all.
    , @Sean

    I don’t see much new in Kevin MacDonald’s response to Confas’ critique (which is, by the way, too limited & ahistorical). MacDonald has just re-iterated his old claims:

    * Jews “follow group evolutionary strategy”. He didn’t prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No “strategy” in such a behavior.
     

    CH Waddington wrote a book called "The Strategy of the Genes" Dawkins wrote of the Selfish Gene. The explanatory power of natural selection on genes and memes does not require the reasons behind what is being discussed as a "selfish" "strategy" to be in a gene, meme, individual organism , or group's mind. The group called Jains can be deconstructed to reveal designs that are rational from a group evolutionary strategy viewpoint. So can the group called Jews.

    As to what qualifies as "science" ask Karl Popper


    This paper re-contextualizes Karl Popper's thought within the anti-nationalist cosmopolitan tradition of the Central European intelligentsia. It argues that, although Popper was brought up in an assimilated Jewish Viennese household, from the perspective of the Jewish Enlightenment or Haskalah tradition, he can be seen to be a modern day heterodox Maskil (scholar). Popper's ever present fear of anti-Semitism and his refusal to see Judaism as compatible with cosmopolitanism raise important questions as to the realisable limits of the cosmopolitan ideal. His inability to integrate an understanding of Jewishness in his cosmopolitan political ideal resulted in his strong opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel. By comparing Popper's positions with those of Hermann Cohen, another neo-Kantian philosopher, I argue that although their solutions fall short in certain respects, their arguments have continuing purchase in recent debates on cosmopolitanism and the problem of the integration of minority groups. In addition, the arguments of the Jewish Enlightenment thinkers offer important insights for the current debates on minority integration and xenophobia.
     
    Thomas Kuhn did a bit better

    Historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), was born in Cincinnati on this date in 1922. His immensely influential book claimed that the progress of science is marked by periodic “paradigm shifts” that open up new understandings of reality unimagined based on previous scientific knowledge, and that scientific truth, at any point in human development, is not a matter of objective fact but of consensus within the scientific community. The Copernican Revolution, for example (as described in his first book in 1957) involved “a transformation of mathematical astronomy, but it embraced conceptual changes in cosmology, physics, philosophy, and religion as well” and “could only be assimilated by men able to create a new physics, a new conception of space, and a new idea of man’s relation to God.” Kuhn’s concept of subjectivity in science very much influenced feminist and postmodernist thought in the so-called social sciences. His teaching years were spent primarily at MIT, although he taught also at Berkeley and Princeton. Kuhn died at 73 in 1996.

    “Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition.” —Thomas Kuhn
     


    I am sorry MacDonald’s work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse
     
    He required no courage to bring it forward, you think?
    , @Liza
    @Bardon. About the overrepresentation of jewz as violin virtuosi. A nonjew, nonasian, ie, a white person, could play like Paganini himself, but whether we know of such a person or not depends on who owns and runs the recording companies, and who is heavily influential in the symphony orchestras and so on. And that is one reason why there appear to be an outlandish number of jews playing classical violin and other classical instruments. In any case, their playing of western music on western instruments is a serious case of cultural appropriation.
    , @CalDre

    * Jews “follow group evolutionary strategy”. He didn’t prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No “strategy” in such a behavior.
     
    The fact that Jews still exist, both religiously and more importantly, tribally, two millennium after the Diaspora (and hence ceasing to constitute the majority group) is overpowering, irrefutable proof that Jews have a group evolutionary strategy. How many groups can make this claim? And which of these is not also a strongly ethnocentric (supremacist, in modern nomenclature) group?

    The entire comment is a virtual denial of reality, presuming that there must be some constant, verbal expression of this strategy in order for there to be one. First, words are merely words, it is actions that matter, and Jewish tribal actions/identity speak for themselves. Second Jews in fact do exhibit a group evolutionary strategy: one as the "chosen" ones (with all of its implications in the various Jewish historical texts, such as the Talmud), and another as the "Is it good for the Jews" introspection. And it is displayed indirectly with Jews' psychotic obsession with being Jewish.

    You claim also that there is no "strategy" in the behavior of a "human collective want[ing] to preserve its identity & to thrive." Well one would imagine so, but, as Kevin MacDonald has aptly demonstrated, it is Jews that are principal instigators in the destruction not only of individual White cultures (Swedish, American, German, etc.), but of the White race as a whole. Multiculturalism, mass immigration, Hollywood Jewish "culture" and the like are all designed to destroy White identity and for Whites to fail. Hence Whites not pursuing their self interest is the actual "strategy" - the "strategy" employed by globalists, largely Jews, to destroy the White race and ethnicities. The only "pure" race to be left, when all is said and done, is the ethnically pure and ever-expanding Israel, perhaps with the global capital in Jerusalem (why does that sound familiar?). So it is a strategy Jews are employing, to leave Jews as the last united group left standing. "The people, united, will never be defeated", and Jews' potent ethnocentrism has kept Jews united, and strong, over the centuries. Knowing that unity and self-consciousness is a great empower of a people, Jews wanted to derive their competitors for power - mainly, Whites - of this strength.

    As to Jews wanting to dominate the world, as a tribe, the evidence for it is of course overwhelming, not just in Jewish texts ("Messiah" etc.), but in Jewish tribal actions (by this I mean actions of the organized - the "State" - portion of the tribe, every tribe has its chieftains/royalty and leaders and institutions, that's what makes it a tribe, and so does of course the Jewish one). And why shouldn't they? Is it "anti-Roman" to say the Romans sought a global empire? Or anti-English to say the British sought a global empire? Of course not, one would not need to refute such an utterly nonsense accusation in any other case. It is a particular habit of Jews to accuse someone of wanting to exterminate all Jews merely for pointing out that, yes, Jews act and have acted in their tribal interests (as if the very existence of the State of Israel, let alone the saga of how that came to be and how it is maintained, alone does not completely validate the proposition). A pathetic, illogical and evil ploy, but one employed continuously by Jews - acting, guess what, in the interests of the tribe/hive.

    , @CalDre

    For instance, except for being Austrian Jew, what is “Jewish” in early, Freudian variant of psychoanalysis?
     
    Except for being an Austrian Jew? You mean, except for the fact that a quite ethnocentric Jew came up with that psycho-garbage, what do Jews have to do with it? That's a good one!

    But, I have something besides the obvious. Freud's id, ego and superego garbage is modeled on kabbalistic traditions. Sure Freud made some changes to the mystical underpinnings, but what good rabbi doesn't adjust his message to the times? This underpinning led Carl Jung to exclaim: "a full understanding of the Jewish origins of psychoanalysis would carry us beyond Jewish Orthodoxy into the subterranean workings of Hasidism and then into the intricacies of the Kabbalah which still remain unexplored psychologically." This article claims, consistent with some of MacDonald's observations, that Freud handed psycho-garbage to Jung to (deceptively attempt to) remove the Jewish connection to it.

    But no doubt that is all "anti-Semitic". So, since only Jews have a voice on anything related to Jews, let's hear it from the virulently anti-Semitic Dennis B. Klein, director of the Center for Holocaust Studies of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, who has authored a book entitled: Jewish Origins of the Psychoanalytic Movement, in which he:


    explores the Jewish consciousness of Freud and his followers and the impact of their Jewish self-conceptions on the early psychoanalytic movement. Using little-known sources such as the diaries and papers of Freud's protégé Otto Rank and records of the Vienna B'nai B'rith that document Freud's active participation in that Jewish fraternal society, Klein argues that the feeling of Jewish ethical responsibility, aimed at renewing ties with Germans and with all humanity, stimulated the work of Freud, Rank, and other analysts and constituted the driving force of the psychoanalytic movement.
     
    Except I would say, it wasn't "the feeling of Jewish ethical responsibility" as much as "the feeling of Jewish ethical [and tribal] superiority" that was the driving factor of Freud's psycho-garbage.
    , @REALITY CHECK
    @CalDre "Is it good for the jews". An ethic of the tribe so embedded in their culture, several Jewish authors employed it as a title for their books.. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Is+it+good+for+the+jews

    As an aside though..note that Freud was a Jew, but apparently not a Zionist. Excerpted from a 1930 letter Freud wrote to Keren Hajessod (Dr. Chaim Koffler):

    I cannot do as you wish (sign a petition criticizing the 1929 Arab revolt) ... Whoever wants to influence the masses must give them something rousing and inflammatory and my sober judgment of Zionism does not permit this....But, on the other hand, I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state, nor that the Christian and Islamic worlds would ever be prepared to have their holy places under Jewish care. It would have seemed more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less historically-burdened land. But I know that such a rational viewpoint would never have gained the enthusiasm of the masses and the financial support of the wealthy.

    I concede with sorrow that the baseless fanaticism of our people is in part to be blamed for the awakening of Arab distrust. I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives.
    Now judge for yourself whether I, with such a critical point of view, am the right person to come forward as the solace of a people deluded by unjustified hope.

    Your obedient servant,

    Freud
    , @ben tillman
    It doesn't really look like you've read the books.
    , @ben tillman

    Jews “follow group evolutionary strategy”. He didn’t prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No “strategy” in such a behavior.
     
    Acknowledgment of the Jewish group strategy is commonplace in Jewish writing. For instance, Dennis Praeger emphasizes this fact in "Why the Jews?".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Lot says:

    Despite its length, this article never even attempts to address the specific criticisms of CoC, instead consisting of mostly long-winded “clarifications.”

    MacDonald’s main problems is that he’s motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    The suggestion that scholars “can’t ignore bad ideas” is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. “Doing battle” against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald’s ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

    1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what’s the point of replying to them?

    2. MacDonald’s main axioms – group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups — are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

    3. MacDonald’s various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

    4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell’s convincing analysis of “middlemen minorities” such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

    Of course I have not plowed through MacDonald’s trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology. But in the marketplace of ideas, a proposal has to have enough initial credibility, and enough signs of adherence to the ground rules of scientific debate, to earn the precious currency of the attention of one’s peers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @perun500
    He responded to Pinker years ago.
    http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Pinker.htm
    , @FKA Max
    I regard Pinker to be nothing more than an academic gatekeeper, after he nonchalantly dismissed the research on MAOA a.k.a. the "warrior gene":

    So what’s your point?

    I thought that was obvious?!

    That Steven Pinker is wrong, of course!
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/the-talk-nonblack-version/#comment-2099819

    Video time-stamped to 9 min 53 sec:

    The Stupid Stupidity Surrounding the Warrior Gene, MAOA, is Stupid

    https://youtu.be/4wPNnAn2MEo?t=9m53s

    More here:

    [Pinker](deliberately?) ignores or does not seem to be aware of the high number of pathological gamblers among Asians/Chinese, that I pointed to above. - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2056086

    and here:

    Fallon is doing the reverse or inverse of Steven Pinker, who talks about differences in IQ but questions the validity of “warrior gene” research. James Fallon talks about the “warrior gene” and psychopathy, but never, to my knowledge, brings up IQ in this context. - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2057186

    Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?

    http://www.nber.org/digest/mar16/w21788.html

    The findings confirm previous work showing that the number of articles by collaborators decreased substantially — by about 40 percent — after the death of a star scientist. Publication activity by non-collaborators increased by an average of 8 percent after the death of an elite scientist. By five years after the death, this activity of non-collaborators fully offset the productivity decline of collaborators.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1815561

    http://www.nber.org/digest/mar16/scientists.jpg

    , @edward smith
    Actually if you were obviously not arguing in bad faith and had read all three of the books in the Culture of Critique series (somthing any serious commenter would do before attempting to delve into Macdonald's mind and tell us what his motivations are) as well as his addendums to it you would know that the first two books (A people that shall dwell alone, separation and its discontents) stand on thier own as works and are not invalidated by any attack on the third work (The culture of critique). Separation and its discontents is actually the more useful work for those wanting to understand Jewish-Gentile group relations. *This is a key point* Many of the people who actually have read all three works detect a subtle change in tone roughly one half of the way through separation and its discontents and Macdonald has owned up to the fact that although he started as a completely impartial observer, researching this topic made him stand up for his own side (non jews). This is the clearest sign that Macdonald did not set out from the beggining to write a polemic somthing that Cofnas (yet another person who has not read all three works of the trilogy) has accused him of.

    As it stands Macdonald has shifted his research from Jews to thier European host populations and has a book forthcoming on the Indo-Europeans.

    Read more Psychoanalyse less.
    , @edward smith
    You are aware that when first published Pinker dismissed The culture of Critique wothout having read it? Why has it taken 20 years for an academic to finally (very weakly) respond? Could it be because Macdonald's arguments cannot be refuted in good faith? Your attempt to deligitimise Macdonald and paint him as somone who taints the anti immigration crowd when his own work is a devastating deconstruction of the Jewish role in creating mass nonwhite immigration is very telling.
    , @European Man
    For a demonstration that Pinker employs non-scientific arguments more in line with cultural Marxism in his vehement, irrational opposition to white identity politics, see Prof Duchesne's review of Enlightenment Now: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2018/03/steven-pinkers-anti-enlightenment-attack-white-identitarians_17.html
    , @tomv
    You sound like iSteve commenter Tiny Duck.

    "You guys are just losers resenting superior black men's success with white women... blah blah blah"

    There was a time when Jews weren't quite so successful in America (or at least weren't admitted to so many country clubs), but God forbid if they would've developed any resentment as a result, let alone anti-gentilic ideas. No, sir, the Chosen People are above such based human impulses. High IQ and all that, you know?

    Self-awareness is not your strong suit. All the IQ in the world cannot help you with that.
    , @Ankh
    Oh geez some nobody was nice enough to write a terrible critique of an obviously superior academics massive 3 book series after skimming one of the books, wow we should all be really thankful. Please. MacDonald drew this response because he can't be ignored any longer, Peterson is being made a fool of by his own fans.

    I don't even agree with MacDonald but thinking Cofnas is in the same weight class as him is a bad joke. Pinker is far smarter but even his response is garbage, which is often the case with Pinker when he tries to expand his reach outside his comfort zone. If Pinker (or Peterson) took CofC seriously I have no doubt he could write an interesting rebuttal, but as of now what we have is CofC and a bunch of Liberal cant as a response.
    , @Wally
    What must be understood here is that Jew, 'Lot', is firm advocate of the absurdly fake '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers', the mother of all lies used against Euro-white gentiles.
    That glaringly, immediately reveals his irrational, manipulative, anti-science side.

    Lot would have no chance in a full-on debate with informed Revisionists, I suspect he realizes that, hence he resorts hysteria.

    There are, however, some Jews who have weaned themselves off of the fake '6M Jew, 5M others, & gas chambers', i.e.:


    "Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

    - Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
     

    If something cannot happen as alleged, then it did not.
    www.codoh.com
    , @forgottenpseudonym
    "Macdonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what’s the point of replying to them?"
    The point of replying would be to demonstrate not to Macdonald but to a scientific audience that his ideas are false. Doh!
    For someone apparently belonging to a group with an average IQ in the region of 110, this is disappointing.
    , @DDM
    Lot says a lot not to have even read MacDonald's work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Lot says:

    MacDonald likes to think of himself as concerned with the fate of American whites, but in fact he and his Nazi buddies are completely rejected by the vast majority of the center and far right in the USA, who are the most profound supporters in the entire world of their Jewish brothers in both the USA and the Holy Land.

    The actual practical consequence of MacDonald and his fellow travelers is that they allow the globalist media to falsely portray American immigration patriots as anti-Semites. They are a millstone around our necks, providing motivation and money to our enemies and embarrassing our supporters with their antics.

    As evidence of this, have Richard Spencer, David Duke, etc EVER got as much media attention as in late 2016? It was one MSM profile interview after another. They helpfully played the exact role the media wanted for them. Spencer even got a Hitler Youth haircut and lied about knowing Stephen Miller to help smear Trump and sideline Miller within the administration. Then he did his absurd lugenpresse and “Hail Trump Hail Victory” event to feed the media’s early attempt to derail Trump after he won.

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.

    As consolation, we are fortunate the left the same problem, but worse. We really just have the Nazis and the Westboro type groups to embarrass us, who are tiny in number. The number of media-whoring left wing groups who embarrass the Democrats and drive away their voters is a lot more numerous, from a million idiot professors like Ward Churchill to the New Black Panthers to myriad angry trannies to the Burqa Brigade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.
     
    Yeah, that's my opinion, too.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Spencer even got a Hitler Youth haircut
     
    Well, of course. His Deep State handlers told him to.

    At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservative
     
    They're part of the show too, of course. You need to figure out what is real and what is synthetic.
    , @ben tillman
    That was a whole of stupid commentary that had absolutely nothing to do with MacDonald's books.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. perun500 says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    I don't see much new in Kevin MacDonald's response to Confas' critique (which is, by the way, too limited & ahistorical). MacDonald has just re-iterated his old claims:

    * Jews "follow group evolutionary strategy". He didn't prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No "strategy" in such a behavior.

    * also, the author's description of "Jewish movements" is non-verifiable & actually difficult to describe. From what I know of Marxism, psychoanalysis or Leninism- these were not "Jewish" movements, neither in intellectual genesis nor with regard to their proponents.
    What about other intellectual currents, prominent in 20th & 21st C? Do these movements or cultural currents qualify as "Jewish": anarchism, free-love leftism, Expressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, German phenomenology in philosophy, cultural critique (Derrida & Foucault following Heidegger), New Left with its post-1968 ideology, multiculturalism as ideology, Jungian archetypal psychology, New Age ideologies, radical Feminism, "New Atheism", evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, various schools of economics (Austrian, Chicago,..), structuralism in humanities, ..?
    I know next to nothing on Boasian anthropology, but I do know quite a lot about Communism & various branches of psychoanalysis, and I don't see how one can show these movement are "Jewish" in origin or history? For instance, except for being Austrian Jew, what is "Jewish" in early, Freudian variant of psychoanalysis? This "school" was a product of German culture during fin de siecle & the general knowledge of psychiatry during these times. What is "Jewish" in its structure, values or general trend, in its goals, or in its map of human psyche?

    * what about areas where ethnic Jews are over-represented in 20th & 21st fields: theoretical physics, all branches of mathematics, chess masters, computer science, violin virtuosi, philanthropists in arts & curators of museums, film directors & producers, ..? Are these areas somehow driven by Jewish interests, whether conscious or not? How can we ascertain this?

    Although I admire MacDonald's work in demolition of maudlin myth the core American Jewish community has over time built about it (eternal victims & universal humanitarians), I don't see his work as dispassionate analysis that would be close to even such a non-exact "science" as evolutionary psychology claims to be. With its broad sweep of generalizations, MacDonald's work on historical traits of Judaism (as culture) is not unlike other historiosophies, similar to St. Augustine, Gioacchino da Fiore, Hegel, Marx or Spengler.

    There are insights in these works- but they are basically an imaginative construction, not more.

    That said, I am sorry MacDonald's work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse, but to dumbification of academia- there is not such thing as intellectual discourse anymore.

    You clearly haven’t read the response or any of Macdonalds other work at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. perun500 says:
    @Lot
    Despite its length, this article never even attempts to address the specific criticisms of CoC, instead consisting of mostly long-winded "clarifications."

    MacDonald's main problems is that he's motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    The suggestion that scholars "can't ignore bad ideas" is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. "Doing battle" against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

    1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?

    2. MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

    3. MacDonald's various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

    4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

    Of course I have not plowed through MacDonald's trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology. But in the marketplace of ideas, a proposal has to have enough initial credibility, and enough signs of adherence to the ground rules of scientific debate, to earn the precious currency of the attention of one's peers.
     

    He responded to Pinker years ago.

    http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Pinker.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    There MacDonald writes:

    In Culture of Critique I make it clear that in order to be considered as a Jew who is participating in a Jewish intellectual movement, the person must have a Jewish identification and must regard their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests.
     
    Cofnas shows many MacDonald's examples do not fit this criteria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. MacDonald’s basic thesis (which he substantiates persuasively) is that numerous intellectual movements over the past century that have been spearheaded and supported by prominent Jews in the West, have carried with them a covert underside designed to advance Jewish interests–often at the expense of host cultures.

    MacDonald’s paradigm is gaining traction. Broadly. The more we witness organized Jewish activism, Jewish advocacy, Zionist policies, Jewish-supported military campaigns, and organized Jewish attempts to censor and control political discourse throughout the world, the more evident becomes their duplicitous agenda.

    MacDonald has connected the dots. Kosher soap cannot wash them away. Speech codes cannot stop their spread.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    MacDonald’s basic thesis (which he substantiates persuasively) is that numerous intellectual movements over the past century that have been spearheaded and supported by prominent Jews in the West,
     
    That has never been seriously disputed

    have carried with them a covert underside designed to advance Jewish interests
     
    Not a real scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. "No evidence that X was to advance Jewish interests, and if fact never actually did so? Doesn't matter, I said they were 'covertly designed!"

    Also, as Cofnas notes, every non-anti-semitic intellectual movement in the West is heavily Jewish, from Communism to Austrian school economics. Not to mention things like chess, computer programming, and theoretical physics that have little to nothing to do with politics.

    You also left out the big issue: the specific scientific claim that Jewish intellectuals are motivated by genes honed in "group evolution." No actual evolutionary biologist, including those well outside the grasp of the PC police or who just don't care, takes this seriously. The math on "group selection" just doesn't add up.

    Speech codes cannot stop their spread.
     
    Actually they can, but are not needed here, nor are they right as a matter of principle. But if you want to harm free speech and see it restricted, abusing your rights in obnoxious ways is the best way to do so.
    , @Ronnie
    I think that Kevin MacDonald makes many original and convincing arguments. The recent critique of CofC is welcome but is unfortunately way off the mark. They do not seem to want to face the basic arguments that implicate the Jews in impacting white culture. Therefore, they create red herrings and trivial questions that are designed to distract innocent people from the real logic and imply that MacDonald is some sort of idiot and also an antisemite. This is far from the truth. I want to say the pieces written by Mark Green in these pages are particularly thoughtful and elegantly summarize the main themes of MacDonald and their significance. This is so important. Very often when you ask very smart people to put their arguments in simple language that ordinary people can grasp, they just veer further off the target and get lost in the logic. However, Mark Green in his postings has simply and elegantly summarized Kevin's thoughts and arguments in a way that all can appreciate. When I try to explain Kevin's CofC to my friends, I use what I have learned from Mark Green's posts and also his Youtube interview with Kevin. Thank you Mark. And thank you to Ron Unz for making this timely discussion possible. It is gratifying to see Kevin MacDonald's monumental labors noted as worthy of recognition and dissection so that his fascinating work can be evaluated transparently by all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Lot says:
    @perun500
    He responded to Pinker years ago.
    http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Pinker.htm

    There MacDonald writes:

    In Culture of Critique I make it clear that in order to be considered as a Jew who is participating in a Jewish intellectual movement, the person must have a Jewish identification and must regard their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests.

    Cofnas shows many MacDonald’s examples do not fit this criteria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Perun500
    No, he doesn't. Again, you didn't read the response.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Lot says:
    @mark green
    MacDonald's basic thesis (which he substantiates persuasively) is that numerous intellectual movements over the past century that have been spearheaded and supported by prominent Jews in the West, have carried with them a covert underside designed to advance Jewish interests--often at the expense of host cultures.

    MacDonald's paradigm is gaining traction. Broadly. The more we witness organized Jewish activism, Jewish advocacy, Zionist policies, Jewish-supported military campaigns, and organized Jewish attempts to censor and control political discourse throughout the world, the more evident becomes their duplicitous agenda.

    MacDonald has connected the dots. Kosher soap cannot wash them away. Speech codes cannot stop their spread.

    MacDonald’s basic thesis (which he substantiates persuasively) is that numerous intellectual movements over the past century that have been spearheaded and supported by prominent Jews in the West,

    That has never been seriously disputed

    have carried with them a covert underside designed to advance Jewish interests

    Not a real scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. “No evidence that X was to advance Jewish interests, and if fact never actually did so? Doesn’t matter, I said they were ‘covertly designed!”

    Also, as Cofnas notes, every non-anti-semitic intellectual movement in the West is heavily Jewish, from Communism to Austrian school economics. Not to mention things like chess, computer programming, and theoretical physics that have little to nothing to do with politics.

    You also left out the big issue: the specific scientific claim that Jewish intellectuals are motivated by genes honed in “group evolution.” No actual evolutionary biologist, including those well outside the grasp of the PC police or who just don’t care, takes this seriously. The math on “group selection” just doesn’t add up.

    Speech codes cannot stop their spread.

    Actually they can, but are not needed here, nor are they right as a matter of principle. But if you want to harm free speech and see it restricted, abusing your rights in obnoxious ways is the best way to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/EveKeneinan/status/975265854597234688
    , @donut
    "Actually they can, but are not needed here, nor are they right as a matter of principle. But if you want to harm free speech and see it restricted, abusing your rights in obnoxious ways is the best way to do so."

    Whoops .
    , @CalDre

    Not a real scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. “No evidence that X was to advance Jewish interests, and if fact never actually did so? Doesn’t matter, I said they were ‘covertly designed!”
     
    LOL, yes, it is difficult to prove intent, but yet, there are millions sitting in prison on this day. I suppose we should let them all free, as circumstantial evidence or forced confessions is all we have?

    In fact, though, these matters are falsifiable. Because there always come folks who show their hand, inadvertently or by "treason", and prove the theory. Benjamin Friedman comes to mind, but there are many others. Some are outright open about it, like the neo-cons who claim US interests and Israeli interests are identical. Obviously, and "scientifically", this can only happen if the US adopts Israeli interests, which is exactly the modus operandi of the treasonous neo-con scum that befouls the Swamp. One can also see it in the obvious double-standards, e.g., Jews aggressively supporting massive Arab and African immigration into Europe and the US, while at the same time ethnically cleansing Africans (even Jewish ones!) and Arabs from Israel.

    What can't be scientifically proven is the largely Jewish-inspired "secular humanist" religion, which has such items of faith as Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Racism is Bad, Homophobia is Bad, and thousands of other religious values which they forcibly try to shove down everyone's throats, with hysterical condemnation, if not outright incarceration or impoverishment, of anyone who refuses to swallow their deleterious witches' brew.

    , @ben tillman

    Also, as Cofnas notes, every non-anti-semitic intellectual movement in the West is heavily Jewish, from Communism to Austrian school economics. Not to mention things like chess, computer programming, and theoretical physics that have little to nothing to do with politics.
     
    And? Why are you telling us this?

    You also left out the big issue: the specific scientific claim that Jewish intellectuals are motivated by genes honed in “group evolution.”
     
    There is no such claim.

    No actual evolutionary biologist, including those well outside the grasp of the PC police or who just don’t care, takes this seriously. The math on “group selection” just doesn’t add up.
     
    You are ludicrously ignorant of the concept of group selection. Literally every example of what YOU conceive of as "individual selection" is in fact an instance of group selection. Read pages 87-98 of Wilson's "Unto Others". One needs no knowledge of math to grasp this fact.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Issac says:

    I’m pleasantly surprised to see this debate happen, but I wonder if it will be widely discussed. Cofnas suggests that we are an intellectual master race, bound to be the elite in any society that permits us to dwell among them. This HBD realist defense is sure to be very unpopular with non-Jewish minorities or social constructivist progressives. I found myself reading Cofnas and wondering what he thinks about uncontrolled third world immigration into the United States and Europe or the tens of thousands of Africans Meretz has saddled us with in Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Lot
    Despite its length, this article never even attempts to address the specific criticisms of CoC, instead consisting of mostly long-winded "clarifications."

    MacDonald's main problems is that he's motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    The suggestion that scholars "can't ignore bad ideas" is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. "Doing battle" against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

    1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?

    2. MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

    3. MacDonald's various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

    4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

    Of course I have not plowed through MacDonald's trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology. But in the marketplace of ideas, a proposal has to have enough initial credibility, and enough signs of adherence to the ground rules of scientific debate, to earn the precious currency of the attention of one's peers.
     

    I regard Pinker to be nothing more than an academic gatekeeper, after he nonchalantly dismissed the research on MAOA a.k.a. the “warrior gene”:

    So what’s your point?

    I thought that was obvious?!

    That Steven Pinker is wrong, of course!

    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/the-talk-nonblack-version/#comment-2099819

    Video time-stamped to 9 min 53 sec:

    The Stupid Stupidity Surrounding the Warrior Gene, MAOA, is Stupid

    More here:

    [Pinker](deliberately?) ignores or does not seem to be aware of the high number of pathological gamblers among Asians/Chinese, that I pointed to above.http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2056086

    and here:

    Fallon is doing the reverse or inverse of Steven Pinker, who talks about differences in IQ but questions the validity of “warrior gene” research. James Fallon talks about the “warrior gene” and psychopathy, but never, to my knowledge, brings up IQ in this context. http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2057186

    Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?

    http://www.nber.org/digest/mar16/w21788.html

    The findings confirm previous work showing that the number of articles by collaborators decreased substantially — by about 40 percent — after the death of a star scientist. Publication activity by non-collaborators increased by an average of 8 percent after the death of an elite scientist. By five years after the death, this activity of non-collaborators fully offset the productivity decline of collaborators.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1815561

    Read More
    • Replies: @keleirne
    Pinker is a good buddy of Jeffrey Epstein, Mossad child sex trafficker/blackmailer



    https://www.edge.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery-medium/public/event-images/492_picture-1.jpg?itok=duN_HKSb

    John Brockman, Steven Pinker, Daniel C. Dennett, Katinka Matson, Richard Dawkins

    Flying to the TED Conference in Monterey California with science philantropist Jeffrey Epstein

    https://www.edge.org/event/the-edge-billionaires-dinner-2002
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. You also left out the big issue: the specific scientific claim that Jewish intellectuals are motivated by genes honed in “group evolution.” No actual evolutionary biologist, including those well outside the grasp of the PC police or who just don’t care, takes this seriously. The math on “group selection” just doesn’t add up.

    I don’t know why people keep saying these sorts of things.

    In fact, cultural group selection, as spelled out by Boyd and Richerson, is by now a well established phenomenon. It is not the same as group selection in ordinary population genetics; in particular, cultural group selection does not require selection for “altruistic” genes — that is, genes which promote the interests of the group at the expense of those of the individual. Cultural group selection typically involves the use of punishments for violation of group norms — punishments that ensure that the interests of members of the groups will suffer if they flout those norms. This mechanism generally aligns individual interests with those of the group.

    And because Jews have practiced endogamy for so many generations, the niche they have occupied should certainly have selected effectively for genes which will promote reproductive success in that niche.

    Given these facts, it’s almost trivially true that Jews have undergone significant cultural group selection, and related genetic selection.

    Whether the details align well with MacDonald’s account is another question. But there is some account that is both true and interesting.

    Frankly, thinking otherwise is just another form of evolution denial. Why should such concepts apply to all kinds of human groups, but not to the Jews?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Well put.

    I always think of the regimented organization of a baboon troop on the move when I imagine "group selection". The strength of the tribe, their survival, depends upon a geometry, a Form, an Idea to use Plato's term. It is the pattern in which each individual assumes a place according to their age, sex and rank that is the essence of their evolutionary strategy. If an individual can or does not conform then they are excluded and, as one baboon researcher pointed out, "a lone baboon is a dead baboon". So you either conform to the group evolutionary strategy or you don't mate and your genes are surely not transmitted to the next generation. What could be clearer? But I note that those who question group evolutionary strategy do so by posing the, as you point out, straw-man argument of completely selfless behavior (angelic).

    But you can see why Jews would insist that they each of and by themselves, "did it all by myself", for that reflects the greater glory on their (admittedly notable) achievements. This is a very common trait among those who have done very well in life. They--selfishly, but that characteristic is part of their reason for their success--deny that they needed any support from the many people, both past and present, whose labors helped put them where they. And this indeed isn't good group evolutionary strategy--so perhaps its self-limiting.

    A more general point is that the Western Mind, at least the English manifestation of it, dwells on specific individual causes in explaining everything. The other approach focuses on the integrity of the whole, the pattern, the Field within which individual behavior occurs. So most intellectuals today, especially in the USA, have a built-in bias of the sort Kuhn was talking about and cannot see that their method of reasoning is stilted in favor of the particular and against the whole. This is a serious fault.

    No physicist would attempt to explain the behavior of a particle without taking into consideration the effect of the strength of field within which the particle operates. The two condition one another. A particle affects its surrounding field and is affected by the field. This is not metaphor. This is real and until social scientists adopt the revolutionary thought processes of 20th century physics, they are hopelessly behind the times and their work will quickly fade.

    Unless you separate a particle and launch it by a giant gun, say a particle accelerator or the Sun, it behaves as a part of a Field, a constellation, a harmonic whole. The Anglo mind doesn't seem to be capable of grasping this reality, though the Continental mind did and does so--for which the Continentals are called "fascists" by the entropy-loving Anglo intellectuals. (Entropy-loving, where did that come from? Well, particles moving randomly, having lost all coherence is the basic state of entropy).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Lot,

    Your dismissal of group selection shows that you’re simply clueless about the levels of selection debate. The math doesn’t add up? What the hell are you talking about?

    “No actual evolutionary biologist, including those well outside the grasp of the PC police or who just don’t care, takes this seriously. The math on ‘group selection’ just doesn’t add up.”

    Group selection theories are supported by many major figures in biology and are defended in extremely high-impact journals. Here’s one recent example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25347943. Keep in mind that MacDonald is a cultural group selectionist specifically. Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Cofnas’s critique hinges on misrepresentations of CoC at just about every turn. He couldn’t even get MacDonald’s clearly stated thesis right. No one who seriously read CoC, and isn’t an idiot, could come away thinking that MacDonald argues that support for Israel is a necessary condition of Jewish activism. And yet Cofnas managed to attribute that claim to MacDonald.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. @Lot
    Despite its length, this article never even attempts to address the specific criticisms of CoC, instead consisting of mostly long-winded "clarifications."

    MacDonald's main problems is that he's motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    The suggestion that scholars "can't ignore bad ideas" is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. "Doing battle" against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

    1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?

    2. MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

    3. MacDonald's various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

    4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

    Of course I have not plowed through MacDonald's trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology. But in the marketplace of ideas, a proposal has to have enough initial credibility, and enough signs of adherence to the ground rules of scientific debate, to earn the precious currency of the attention of one's peers.
     

    Actually if you were obviously not arguing in bad faith and had read all three of the books in the Culture of Critique series (somthing any serious commenter would do before attempting to delve into Macdonald’s mind and tell us what his motivations are) as well as his addendums to it you would know that the first two books (A people that shall dwell alone, separation and its discontents) stand on thier own as works and are not invalidated by any attack on the third work (The culture of critique). Separation and its discontents is actually the more useful work for those wanting to understand Jewish-Gentile group relations. *This is a key point* Many of the people who actually have read all three works detect a subtle change in tone roughly one half of the way through separation and its discontents and Macdonald has owned up to the fact that although he started as a completely impartial observer, researching this topic made him stand up for his own side (non jews). This is the clearest sign that Macdonald did not set out from the beggining to write a polemic somthing that Cofnas (yet another person who has not read all three works of the trilogy) has accused him of.

    As it stands Macdonald has shifted his research from Jews to thier European host populations and has a book forthcoming on the Indo-Europeans.

    Read more Psychoanalyse less.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Lot
    Despite its length, this article never even attempts to address the specific criticisms of CoC, instead consisting of mostly long-winded "clarifications."

    MacDonald's main problems is that he's motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    The suggestion that scholars "can't ignore bad ideas" is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. "Doing battle" against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

    1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?

    2. MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

    3. MacDonald's various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

    4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

    Of course I have not plowed through MacDonald's trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology. But in the marketplace of ideas, a proposal has to have enough initial credibility, and enough signs of adherence to the ground rules of scientific debate, to earn the precious currency of the attention of one's peers.
     

    You are aware that when first published Pinker dismissed The culture of Critique wothout having read it? Why has it taken 20 years for an academic to finally (very weakly) respond? Could it be because Macdonald’s arguments cannot be refuted in good faith? Your attempt to deligitimise Macdonald and paint him as somone who taints the anti immigration crowd when his own work is a devastating deconstruction of the Jewish role in creating mass nonwhite immigration is very telling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Perun500 says:
    @Lot
    There MacDonald writes:

    In Culture of Critique I make it clear that in order to be considered as a Jew who is participating in a Jewish intellectual movement, the person must have a Jewish identification and must regard their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests.
     
    Cofnas shows many MacDonald's examples do not fit this criteria.

    No, he doesn’t. Again, you didn’t read the response.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Lot
    Despite its length, this article never even attempts to address the specific criticisms of CoC, instead consisting of mostly long-winded "clarifications."

    MacDonald's main problems is that he's motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    The suggestion that scholars "can't ignore bad ideas" is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. "Doing battle" against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

    1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?

    2. MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

    3. MacDonald's various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

    4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

    Of course I have not plowed through MacDonald's trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology. But in the marketplace of ideas, a proposal has to have enough initial credibility, and enough signs of adherence to the ground rules of scientific debate, to earn the precious currency of the attention of one's peers.
     

    For a demonstration that Pinker employs non-scientific arguments more in line with cultural Marxism in his vehement, irrational opposition to white identity politics, see Prof Duchesne’s review of Enlightenment Now: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2018/03/steven-pinkers-anti-enlightenment-attack-white-identitarians_17.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Lot
    MacDonald likes to think of himself as concerned with the fate of American whites, but in fact he and his Nazi buddies are completely rejected by the vast majority of the center and far right in the USA, who are the most profound supporters in the entire world of their Jewish brothers in both the USA and the Holy Land.

    The actual practical consequence of MacDonald and his fellow travelers is that they allow the globalist media to falsely portray American immigration patriots as anti-Semites. They are a millstone around our necks, providing motivation and money to our enemies and embarrassing our supporters with their antics.

    As evidence of this, have Richard Spencer, David Duke, etc EVER got as much media attention as in late 2016? It was one MSM profile interview after another. They helpfully played the exact role the media wanted for them. Spencer even got a Hitler Youth haircut and lied about knowing Stephen Miller to help smear Trump and sideline Miller within the administration. Then he did his absurd lugenpresse and "Hail Trump Hail Victory" event to feed the media's early attempt to derail Trump after he won.

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media's pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.

    As consolation, we are fortunate the left the same problem, but worse. We really just have the Nazis and the Westboro type groups to embarrass us, who are tiny in number. The number of media-whoring left wing groups who embarrass the Democrats and drive away their voters is a lot more numerous, from a million idiot professors like Ward Churchill to the New Black Panthers to myriad angry trannies to the Burqa Brigade.

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.

    Yeah, that’s my opinion, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Denken
    As one deeply distraught over the tilting that American Jews cause to the socio-political course and destiny of the U. S., I've long sought a forum for discussing that topic in a spirit, say, of AmRen's exposition of the black equivalent thereof. I've written some critical pieces myself, including, recently, one at UR about Jewish attacks on Poland.

    However, any such J-criticism is tainted a priori, washed out, because it's automatically lumped together with the lunatic fringe. The field of J-criticism has been pre-empted by a tribe of Nazizoid maniacs, all weaned on the Protocols, Mein Kampf, Savitri Devi, Francis Yockey, Mark Weber and MacDonald, with the latter providing the veneer of academic respectability to the former.

    Any discussion of the merits or drawbacks of Jewish influence draws this tribe like a swarm of hornets to ripe red meat. And the junk they post is so lunatic, oozing confirmation bias and pure unadulterated hate, that it defeats the very credibility of any criticism of Jews. Trying and failing to shoo away that swarm, I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    "By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances, you are poisoning the whole kettle of soup. You are doing for it what the “Jews won’t replace us” crowd did for the white cause in Charlottesville. You could not be more effective if you were a Black Ops unit of ZOA or ADL– and perhaps that’s what you are. Go elsewhere, Nazi or false flag Nazi scum. It’s a free country, you can wear svastika armbands, you can hold your own demonstrations, but don’t sabotage it for the rest of us."

    On another note: where is MacDonald's A3P party? I read its platform; it was great -- I'd have voted for it. But, to the knowing, there was a subtext there too, evinced in the utterances and activities of A3P's founders: joo-hatred. Too bad.

    White nationalist parties in Europe have thrived: Sweden Democrats, Vlaams Belang, Front National, AfD, FPÖ in Austria etc. They thrived after cleansing themselves of prominent anti-Semites and repudiating their utterances. And no, not because joos control the media. The respective Jewish communities in those countries oppose the nationalist parties to this day -- and yes, I do feel enmity to those communities because of that.

    BNP in the UK, stuck in a joos-done-it-to-us mold, like A3P, died with a whimper. The world after Hitler is not the same it was before. "Die Juden sind unser Unglück!" is not a road to winning hearts and minds anymore, yet, whatever MacDonald's intentions have been, that's the conclusion that arises from his publications, and that's why the Daily Stormer is quite similar to the daily Stürmer. Not smart.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    MacDonald’s basic thesis (which he substantiates persuasively) is that numerous intellectual movements over the past century that have been spearheaded and supported by prominent Jews in the West,
     
    That has never been seriously disputed

    have carried with them a covert underside designed to advance Jewish interests
     
    Not a real scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. "No evidence that X was to advance Jewish interests, and if fact never actually did so? Doesn't matter, I said they were 'covertly designed!"

    Also, as Cofnas notes, every non-anti-semitic intellectual movement in the West is heavily Jewish, from Communism to Austrian school economics. Not to mention things like chess, computer programming, and theoretical physics that have little to nothing to do with politics.

    You also left out the big issue: the specific scientific claim that Jewish intellectuals are motivated by genes honed in "group evolution." No actual evolutionary biologist, including those well outside the grasp of the PC police or who just don't care, takes this seriously. The math on "group selection" just doesn't add up.

    Speech codes cannot stop their spread.
     
    Actually they can, but are not needed here, nor are they right as a matter of principle. But if you want to harm free speech and see it restricted, abusing your rights in obnoxious ways is the best way to do so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. keleirne says:
    @FKA Max
    I regard Pinker to be nothing more than an academic gatekeeper, after he nonchalantly dismissed the research on MAOA a.k.a. the "warrior gene":

    So what’s your point?

    I thought that was obvious?!

    That Steven Pinker is wrong, of course!
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/the-talk-nonblack-version/#comment-2099819

    Video time-stamped to 9 min 53 sec:

    The Stupid Stupidity Surrounding the Warrior Gene, MAOA, is Stupid

    https://youtu.be/4wPNnAn2MEo?t=9m53s

    More here:

    [Pinker](deliberately?) ignores or does not seem to be aware of the high number of pathological gamblers among Asians/Chinese, that I pointed to above. - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2056086

    and here:

    Fallon is doing the reverse or inverse of Steven Pinker, who talks about differences in IQ but questions the validity of “warrior gene” research. James Fallon talks about the “warrior gene” and psychopathy, but never, to my knowledge, brings up IQ in this context. - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2057186

    Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?

    http://www.nber.org/digest/mar16/w21788.html

    The findings confirm previous work showing that the number of articles by collaborators decreased substantially — by about 40 percent — after the death of a star scientist. Publication activity by non-collaborators increased by an average of 8 percent after the death of an elite scientist. By five years after the death, this activity of non-collaborators fully offset the productivity decline of collaborators.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1815561

    http://www.nber.org/digest/mar16/scientists.jpg

    Pinker is a good buddy of Jeffrey Epstein, Mossad child sex trafficker/blackmailer

    https://www.edge.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery-medium/public/event-images/492_picture-1.jpg?itok=duN_HKSb

    John Brockman, Steven Pinker, Daniel C. Dennett, Katinka Matson, Richard Dawkins

    Flying to the TED Conference in Monterey California with science philantropist Jeffrey Epstein

    https://www.edge.org/event/the-edge-billionaires-dinner-2002

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. “Too little too late” may characterize the importance of the fact that Confas, an academic, has responded as such to “A Culture of Critique”, the third book of Kevin MacDonald’s academic trilogy on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. That it took 2 decades for _any_ academic response, during which the neocon agenda unleashed by 9/11/2001 cost untold human and economic damage, is a damning indictment of academia. Of course, the fact that “A Culture of Critique” provides a scholarly basis for the analysis of necon excess is one, of a number of its attributes, that made it radioactive to academia. It is clear from MacDonald’s preliminary response that he welcomes this long overdue scholarly discourse. Unfortunately, it does appear that Confas is knocking over strawmen — which is a consistent pattern in pseudo-science. Hence, it is “too little” as well as “too late”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @Bardon Kaldian

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.
     
    Yeah, that's my opinion, too.

    As one deeply distraught over the tilting that American Jews cause to the socio-political course and destiny of the U. S., I’ve long sought a forum for discussing that topic in a spirit, say, of AmRen’s exposition of the black equivalent thereof. I’ve written some critical pieces myself, including, recently, one at UR about Jewish attacks on Poland.

    However, any such J-criticism is tainted a priori, washed out, because it’s automatically lumped together with the lunatic fringe. The field of J-criticism has been pre-empted by a tribe of Nazizoid maniacs, all weaned on the Protocols, Mein Kampf, Savitri Devi, Francis Yockey, Mark Weber and MacDonald, with the latter providing the veneer of academic respectability to the former.

    Any discussion of the merits or drawbacks of Jewish influence draws this tribe like a swarm of hornets to ripe red meat. And the junk they post is so lunatic, oozing confirmation bias and pure unadulterated hate, that it defeats the very credibility of any criticism of Jews. Trying and failing to shoo away that swarm, I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    “By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances, you are poisoning the whole kettle of soup. You are doing for it what the “Jews won’t replace us” crowd did for the white cause in Charlottesville. You could not be more effective if you were a Black Ops unit of ZOA or ADL– and perhaps that’s what you are. Go elsewhere, Nazi or false flag Nazi scum. It’s a free country, you can wear svastika armbands, you can hold your own demonstrations, but don’t sabotage it for the rest of us.”

    On another note: where is MacDonald’s A3P party? I read its platform; it was great — I’d have voted for it. But, to the knowing, there was a subtext there too, evinced in the utterances and activities of A3P’s founders: joo-hatred. Too bad.

    White nationalist parties in Europe have thrived: Sweden Democrats, Vlaams Belang, Front National, AfD, FPÖ in Austria etc. They thrived after cleansing themselves of prominent anti-Semites and repudiating their utterances. And no, not because joos control the media. The respective Jewish communities in those countries oppose the nationalist parties to this day — and yes, I do feel enmity to those communities because of that.

    BNP in the UK, stuck in a joos-done-it-to-us mold, like A3P, died with a whimper. The world after Hitler is not the same it was before. “Die Juden sind unser Unglück!” is not a road to winning hearts and minds anymore, yet, whatever MacDonald’s intentions have been, that’s the conclusion that arises from his publications, and that’s why the Daily Stormer is quite similar to the daily Stürmer. Not smart.

    Read More
    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @edward smith
    'I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    “By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances, you are poisoning the whole kettle of soup. You are doing for it what the “Jews won’t replace us” crowd did for the white cause in Charlottesville. You could not be more effective if you were a Black Ops unit of ZOA or ADL– and perhaps that’s what you are. Go elsewhere, Nazi or false flag Nazi scum. It’s a free country, you can wear svastika armbands, you can hold your own demonstrations, but don’t sabotage it for the rest of us.”'

    Yup.Ok.Excellent. Just as Lot has been trying to do in another part of the comments you are keen to taint Macdonald and his work by association. What the genius wannabe gatekeepers of this comment section have forgotten to take into account however is that *Macdonald's critique has been around for 20 years*. Where were all of these concerned observers/concern trolls during the two decades Macdonald had to build up his influence, add to his trilogy, start two online journals and become a major factor in alternative politics/ culture.

    Its almost like ignoring him didnt work so now he must be anathematised for the good of the anti-immigration movement-after 20 years!

    Lol

    you guys can do better than this.

    , @Mishra
    A minor (though prolix) masterpiece of concern trolling mixed with guilt-by-association. I salute you with my finest (though unpracticed) Roman gesture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Ronnie says:
    @mark green
    MacDonald's basic thesis (which he substantiates persuasively) is that numerous intellectual movements over the past century that have been spearheaded and supported by prominent Jews in the West, have carried with them a covert underside designed to advance Jewish interests--often at the expense of host cultures.

    MacDonald's paradigm is gaining traction. Broadly. The more we witness organized Jewish activism, Jewish advocacy, Zionist policies, Jewish-supported military campaigns, and organized Jewish attempts to censor and control political discourse throughout the world, the more evident becomes their duplicitous agenda.

    MacDonald has connected the dots. Kosher soap cannot wash them away. Speech codes cannot stop their spread.

    I think that Kevin MacDonald makes many original and convincing arguments. The recent critique of CofC is welcome but is unfortunately way off the mark. They do not seem to want to face the basic arguments that implicate the Jews in impacting white culture. Therefore, they create red herrings and trivial questions that are designed to distract innocent people from the real logic and imply that MacDonald is some sort of idiot and also an antisemite. This is far from the truth. I want to say the pieces written by Mark Green in these pages are particularly thoughtful and elegantly summarize the main themes of MacDonald and their significance. This is so important. Very often when you ask very smart people to put their arguments in simple language that ordinary people can grasp, they just veer further off the target and get lost in the logic. However, Mark Green in his postings has simply and elegantly summarized Kevin’s thoughts and arguments in a way that all can appreciate. When I try to explain Kevin’s CofC to my friends, I use what I have learned from Mark Green’s posts and also his Youtube interview with Kevin. Thank you Mark. And thank you to Ron Unz for making this timely discussion possible. It is gratifying to see Kevin MacDonald’s monumental labors noted as worthy of recognition and dissection so that his fascinating work can be evaluated transparently by all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Sean says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    I don't see much new in Kevin MacDonald's response to Confas' critique (which is, by the way, too limited & ahistorical). MacDonald has just re-iterated his old claims:

    * Jews "follow group evolutionary strategy". He didn't prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No "strategy" in such a behavior.

    * also, the author's description of "Jewish movements" is non-verifiable & actually difficult to describe. From what I know of Marxism, psychoanalysis or Leninism- these were not "Jewish" movements, neither in intellectual genesis nor with regard to their proponents.
    What about other intellectual currents, prominent in 20th & 21st C? Do these movements or cultural currents qualify as "Jewish": anarchism, free-love leftism, Expressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, German phenomenology in philosophy, cultural critique (Derrida & Foucault following Heidegger), New Left with its post-1968 ideology, multiculturalism as ideology, Jungian archetypal psychology, New Age ideologies, radical Feminism, "New Atheism", evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, various schools of economics (Austrian, Chicago,..), structuralism in humanities, ..?
    I know next to nothing on Boasian anthropology, but I do know quite a lot about Communism & various branches of psychoanalysis, and I don't see how one can show these movement are "Jewish" in origin or history? For instance, except for being Austrian Jew, what is "Jewish" in early, Freudian variant of psychoanalysis? This "school" was a product of German culture during fin de siecle & the general knowledge of psychiatry during these times. What is "Jewish" in its structure, values or general trend, in its goals, or in its map of human psyche?

    * what about areas where ethnic Jews are over-represented in 20th & 21st fields: theoretical physics, all branches of mathematics, chess masters, computer science, violin virtuosi, philanthropists in arts & curators of museums, film directors & producers, ..? Are these areas somehow driven by Jewish interests, whether conscious or not? How can we ascertain this?

    Although I admire MacDonald's work in demolition of maudlin myth the core American Jewish community has over time built about it (eternal victims & universal humanitarians), I don't see his work as dispassionate analysis that would be close to even such a non-exact "science" as evolutionary psychology claims to be. With its broad sweep of generalizations, MacDonald's work on historical traits of Judaism (as culture) is not unlike other historiosophies, similar to St. Augustine, Gioacchino da Fiore, Hegel, Marx or Spengler.

    There are insights in these works- but they are basically an imaginative construction, not more.

    That said, I am sorry MacDonald's work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse, but to dumbification of academia- there is not such thing as intellectual discourse anymore.

    I don’t see much new in Kevin MacDonald’s response to Confas’ critique (which is, by the way, too limited & ahistorical). MacDonald has just re-iterated his old claims:

    * Jews “follow group evolutionary strategy”. He didn’t prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No “strategy” in such a behavior.

    CH Waddington wrote a book called “The Strategy of the Genes” Dawkins wrote of the Selfish Gene. The explanatory power of natural selection on genes and memes does not require the reasons behind what is being discussed as a “selfish” “strategy” to be in a gene, meme, individual organism , or group’s mind. The group called Jains can be deconstructed to reveal designs that are rational from a group evolutionary strategy viewpoint. So can the group called Jews.

    As to what qualifies as “science” ask Karl Popper

    This paper re-contextualizes Karl Popper’s thought within the anti-nationalist cosmopolitan tradition of the Central European intelligentsia. It argues that, although Popper was brought up in an assimilated Jewish Viennese household, from the perspective of the Jewish Enlightenment or Haskalah tradition, he can be seen to be a modern day heterodox Maskil (scholar). Popper’s ever present fear of anti-Semitism and his refusal to see Judaism as compatible with cosmopolitanism raise important questions as to the realisable limits of the cosmopolitan ideal. His inability to integrate an understanding of Jewishness in his cosmopolitan political ideal resulted in his strong opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel. By comparing Popper’s positions with those of Hermann Cohen, another neo-Kantian philosopher, I argue that although their solutions fall short in certain respects, their arguments have continuing purchase in recent debates on cosmopolitanism and the problem of the integration of minority groups. In addition, the arguments of the Jewish Enlightenment thinkers offer important insights for the current debates on minority integration and xenophobia.

    Thomas Kuhn did a bit better

    Historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), was born in Cincinnati on this date in 1922. His immensely influential book claimed that the progress of science is marked by periodic “paradigm shifts” that open up new understandings of reality unimagined based on previous scientific knowledge, and that scientific truth, at any point in human development, is not a matter of objective fact but of consensus within the scientific community. The Copernican Revolution, for example (as described in his first book in 1957) involved “a transformation of mathematical astronomy, but it embraced conceptual changes in cosmology, physics, philosophy, and religion as well” and “could only be assimilated by men able to create a new physics, a new conception of space, and a new idea of man’s relation to God.” Kuhn’s concept of subjectivity in science very much influenced feminist and postmodernist thought in the so-called social sciences. His teaching years were spent primarily at MIT, although he taught also at Berkeley and Princeton. Kuhn died at 73 in 1996.

    “Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition.” —Thomas Kuhn

    I am sorry MacDonald’s work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse

    He required no courage to bring it forward, you think?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    CH Waddington wrote a book called “The Strategy of the Genes” Dawkins wrote of the Selfish Gene. The explanatory power of natural selection on genes and memes does not require the reasons behind what is being discussed as a “selfish” “strategy” to be in a gene, meme, individual organism , or group’s mind.
     
    Sorry, but this is nothing. Dawkins selfish gene was an interesting hypothesis, but not corroborated by science.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Reception

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_Richard_Dawkins_selfish_genes_pseudoscience

    http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolecol/selfishgene.html

    "Memes" are quackery, like astrology & phlogiston.

    And Popper & Kuhn have nothing to do with the subject.

    Utter rubbish like palmistry & homeopathy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. tomv says:
    @Lot
    Despite its length, this article never even attempts to address the specific criticisms of CoC, instead consisting of mostly long-winded "clarifications."

    MacDonald's main problems is that he's motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    The suggestion that scholars "can't ignore bad ideas" is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. "Doing battle" against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

    1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?

    2. MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

    3. MacDonald's various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

    4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

    Of course I have not plowed through MacDonald's trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology. But in the marketplace of ideas, a proposal has to have enough initial credibility, and enough signs of adherence to the ground rules of scientific debate, to earn the precious currency of the attention of one's peers.
     

    You sound like iSteve commenter Tiny Duck.

    “You guys are just losers resenting superior black men’s success with white women… blah blah blah”

    There was a time when Jews weren’t quite so successful in America (or at least weren’t admitted to so many country clubs), but God forbid if they would’ve developed any resentment as a result, let alone anti-gentilic ideas. No, sir, the Chosen People are above such based human impulses. High IQ and all that, you know?

    Self-awareness is not your strong suit. All the IQ in the world cannot help you with that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Max Denken
    As one deeply distraught over the tilting that American Jews cause to the socio-political course and destiny of the U. S., I've long sought a forum for discussing that topic in a spirit, say, of AmRen's exposition of the black equivalent thereof. I've written some critical pieces myself, including, recently, one at UR about Jewish attacks on Poland.

    However, any such J-criticism is tainted a priori, washed out, because it's automatically lumped together with the lunatic fringe. The field of J-criticism has been pre-empted by a tribe of Nazizoid maniacs, all weaned on the Protocols, Mein Kampf, Savitri Devi, Francis Yockey, Mark Weber and MacDonald, with the latter providing the veneer of academic respectability to the former.

    Any discussion of the merits or drawbacks of Jewish influence draws this tribe like a swarm of hornets to ripe red meat. And the junk they post is so lunatic, oozing confirmation bias and pure unadulterated hate, that it defeats the very credibility of any criticism of Jews. Trying and failing to shoo away that swarm, I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    "By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances, you are poisoning the whole kettle of soup. You are doing for it what the “Jews won’t replace us” crowd did for the white cause in Charlottesville. You could not be more effective if you were a Black Ops unit of ZOA or ADL– and perhaps that’s what you are. Go elsewhere, Nazi or false flag Nazi scum. It’s a free country, you can wear svastika armbands, you can hold your own demonstrations, but don’t sabotage it for the rest of us."

    On another note: where is MacDonald's A3P party? I read its platform; it was great -- I'd have voted for it. But, to the knowing, there was a subtext there too, evinced in the utterances and activities of A3P's founders: joo-hatred. Too bad.

    White nationalist parties in Europe have thrived: Sweden Democrats, Vlaams Belang, Front National, AfD, FPÖ in Austria etc. They thrived after cleansing themselves of prominent anti-Semites and repudiating their utterances. And no, not because joos control the media. The respective Jewish communities in those countries oppose the nationalist parties to this day -- and yes, I do feel enmity to those communities because of that.

    BNP in the UK, stuck in a joos-done-it-to-us mold, like A3P, died with a whimper. The world after Hitler is not the same it was before. "Die Juden sind unser Unglück!" is not a road to winning hearts and minds anymore, yet, whatever MacDonald's intentions have been, that's the conclusion that arises from his publications, and that's why the Daily Stormer is quite similar to the daily Stürmer. Not smart.

    ‘I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    “By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances, you are poisoning the whole kettle of soup. You are doing for it what the “Jews won’t replace us” crowd did for the white cause in Charlottesville. You could not be more effective if you were a Black Ops unit of ZOA or ADL– and perhaps that’s what you are. Go elsewhere, Nazi or false flag Nazi scum. It’s a free country, you can wear svastika armbands, you can hold your own demonstrations, but don’t sabotage it for the rest of us.”’

    Yup.Ok.Excellent. Just as Lot has been trying to do in another part of the comments you are keen to taint Macdonald and his work by association. What the genius wannabe gatekeepers of this comment section have forgotten to take into account however is that *Macdonald’s critique has been around for 20 years*. Where were all of these concerned observers/concern trolls during the two decades Macdonald had to build up his influence, add to his trilogy, start two online journals and become a major factor in alternative politics/ culture.

    Its almost like ignoring him didnt work so now he must be anathematised for the good of the anti-immigration movement-after 20 years!

    Lol

    you guys can do better than this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Denken
    Not quite. I have keen respect for KMD's intelligence and academic procedure. I have none for the noisy Nazizoid followers. I only wish KMD cared to turn his analytical gifts on his followers and separated their sound beliefs from their psychotic ones. But he doesn't, and that tells me something.

    As to the anti-immigration movement, I've been at it passively for 30 years of which the last 11 actively. Jews quite offended by KMD's writings, like Larry Auster and others whose books and contributions are featured at VDare.com, AmRen, C.I.S. etc have been at it for all those 20 years or more. A Jew, Steven Miller, is the greatest friend we have in the WH, Trump included. Another anti-immigration power, Steve Bannon, ran an [inter alia] anti-immigration publishing outfit founded by two Jews in Jerusalem. So what's this about "anathemizing" the anti-immigration movement. If this movement were limited to KMD acolytes alone, we can say goodbye and switch off the lights.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    you guys can do better than this.
     
    I doubt that frankly.

    Well, maybe you're just in a generous mood...
    , @Twodees Partain
    "you guys can do better than this."

    No, they can't. Max has tried here a few times and always bogs down in 500+ word comments where a single sentence would better state what he's trying to say.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Sean

    I don’t see much new in Kevin MacDonald’s response to Confas’ critique (which is, by the way, too limited & ahistorical). MacDonald has just re-iterated his old claims:

    * Jews “follow group evolutionary strategy”. He didn’t prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No “strategy” in such a behavior.
     

    CH Waddington wrote a book called "The Strategy of the Genes" Dawkins wrote of the Selfish Gene. The explanatory power of natural selection on genes and memes does not require the reasons behind what is being discussed as a "selfish" "strategy" to be in a gene, meme, individual organism , or group's mind. The group called Jains can be deconstructed to reveal designs that are rational from a group evolutionary strategy viewpoint. So can the group called Jews.

    As to what qualifies as "science" ask Karl Popper


    This paper re-contextualizes Karl Popper's thought within the anti-nationalist cosmopolitan tradition of the Central European intelligentsia. It argues that, although Popper was brought up in an assimilated Jewish Viennese household, from the perspective of the Jewish Enlightenment or Haskalah tradition, he can be seen to be a modern day heterodox Maskil (scholar). Popper's ever present fear of anti-Semitism and his refusal to see Judaism as compatible with cosmopolitanism raise important questions as to the realisable limits of the cosmopolitan ideal. His inability to integrate an understanding of Jewishness in his cosmopolitan political ideal resulted in his strong opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel. By comparing Popper's positions with those of Hermann Cohen, another neo-Kantian philosopher, I argue that although their solutions fall short in certain respects, their arguments have continuing purchase in recent debates on cosmopolitanism and the problem of the integration of minority groups. In addition, the arguments of the Jewish Enlightenment thinkers offer important insights for the current debates on minority integration and xenophobia.
     
    Thomas Kuhn did a bit better

    Historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), was born in Cincinnati on this date in 1922. His immensely influential book claimed that the progress of science is marked by periodic “paradigm shifts” that open up new understandings of reality unimagined based on previous scientific knowledge, and that scientific truth, at any point in human development, is not a matter of objective fact but of consensus within the scientific community. The Copernican Revolution, for example (as described in his first book in 1957) involved “a transformation of mathematical astronomy, but it embraced conceptual changes in cosmology, physics, philosophy, and religion as well” and “could only be assimilated by men able to create a new physics, a new conception of space, and a new idea of man’s relation to God.” Kuhn’s concept of subjectivity in science very much influenced feminist and postmodernist thought in the so-called social sciences. His teaching years were spent primarily at MIT, although he taught also at Berkeley and Princeton. Kuhn died at 73 in 1996.

    “Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition.” —Thomas Kuhn
     


    I am sorry MacDonald’s work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse
     
    He required no courage to bring it forward, you think?

    CH Waddington wrote a book called “The Strategy of the Genes” Dawkins wrote of the Selfish Gene. The explanatory power of natural selection on genes and memes does not require the reasons behind what is being discussed as a “selfish” “strategy” to be in a gene, meme, individual organism , or group’s mind.

    Sorry, but this is nothing. Dawkins selfish gene was an interesting hypothesis, but not corroborated by science.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Reception

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_Richard_Dawkins_selfish_genes_pseudoscience

    http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolecol/selfishgene.html

    “Memes” are quackery, like astrology & phlogiston.

    And Popper & Kuhn have nothing to do with the subject.

    Utter rubbish like palmistry & homeopathy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @edward smith
    'I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    “By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances, you are poisoning the whole kettle of soup. You are doing for it what the “Jews won’t replace us” crowd did for the white cause in Charlottesville. You could not be more effective if you were a Black Ops unit of ZOA or ADL– and perhaps that’s what you are. Go elsewhere, Nazi or false flag Nazi scum. It’s a free country, you can wear svastika armbands, you can hold your own demonstrations, but don’t sabotage it for the rest of us.”'

    Yup.Ok.Excellent. Just as Lot has been trying to do in another part of the comments you are keen to taint Macdonald and his work by association. What the genius wannabe gatekeepers of this comment section have forgotten to take into account however is that *Macdonald's critique has been around for 20 years*. Where were all of these concerned observers/concern trolls during the two decades Macdonald had to build up his influence, add to his trilogy, start two online journals and become a major factor in alternative politics/ culture.

    Its almost like ignoring him didnt work so now he must be anathematised for the good of the anti-immigration movement-after 20 years!

    Lol

    you guys can do better than this.

    Not quite. I have keen respect for KMD’s intelligence and academic procedure. I have none for the noisy Nazizoid followers. I only wish KMD cared to turn his analytical gifts on his followers and separated their sound beliefs from their psychotic ones. But he doesn’t, and that tells me something.

    As to the anti-immigration movement, I’ve been at it passively for 30 years of which the last 11 actively. Jews quite offended by KMD’s writings, like Larry Auster and others whose books and contributions are featured at VDare.com, AmRen, C.I.S. etc have been at it for all those 20 years or more. A Jew, Steven Miller, is the greatest friend we have in the WH, Trump included. Another anti-immigration power, Steve Bannon, ran an [inter alia] anti-immigration publishing outfit founded by two Jews in Jerusalem. So what’s this about “anathemizing” the anti-immigration movement. If this movement were limited to KMD acolytes alone, we can say goodbye and switch off the lights.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edward smith
    'Jews quite offended by KMD’s writings, like Larry Auster and others whose books and contributions are featured at VDare.com, AmRen, C.I.S. etc have been at it for all those 20 years or more'

    and thier reasoned detailed scholarly rebutals (of CoC) are where? Ive looked. As for Auster it is pretty clear from his writing where his true allegiences lie and I regard him as just another gatekeeper. Thanks for mention Amren whose founder considers Jews white and so to begin with does not see a conflict of interest between Jews and whites regarding immigration. you have a keen respect for his 'intelligence and academic procedure' and yet you write ‘I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    “By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances'

    I mean do you realise that Kevin Mcdobald is on record as saying that anyone with an IQ less than 120 shouldn't publicly discuss the Jewish question? That he has stated that he is 'horrified' by the daily stormer. Your fake regard for his intelligence and academic procedure aside, trying to cast a retired academic who has actually given up on the study of Jews and moved onto Europeans, as some kind of Nazi leader is particularly insidious. But seriously why am I arguing with a troll concerned or not.
    , @36 ulster
    Good comments concerning Mr. MacDonald's essay. "Edward Smith's" criticisms of you and the late, patriotic Lawrence Auster are great examples of how one can be tyrannized by small differences--or by the purity of one's convictions, as the case may be. By the way, I very much appreciated your recent essay on the recent tensions between the Polish and Israeli governments, and of the complexity of the relationship between Poland's Jews and Catholics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. anon[375] • Disclaimer says:

    Why is the “default” hypothesis that Jews push leftist causes because they’re higher-IQ, more urban Christians? Why is that more parsimonious than self-interest? Even if I granted that Jews were usually universalistic, I don’t see how it squares the circle of Jews’ obviously hypocritical behavior vis-a-vis ethno-nationalism in the US vs Israel. But, I don’t grant it, because, as Stephen Isaacs explained, Jews “aren’t liberal voters” they are the “most self-interested voters in the society.” *0* The fact that Jews aren’t really “liberal” universalists at all by itself debunks Cofnas’ central point.

    Because MacDonald’s work is written essentially as a history, it is always going to be open to accusations of cherry-picking (all histories are), and attacks of what-about-ism, as Cofnas does extensively, “What about Chomsky saying X? What about Marx and Freud who said Y?” *1* This is due to the fact that no history book is large enough to include all of the historical record, and therefore must pick a subset of examples from the much larger set of examples that exist in the real world.*2*

    MacDonald provides examples and interpretations of motivations, and Cofnas provides counter-examples, and disagrees, that’s all. This isn’t “scientific” in some strict sense. You would need statistics to be “scientific.” And, what do these statistics show about the hypocritical behavior of the broader Jewish community? That MacDonald’s core observations are right, and that Cofnas’ default hypothesis is wrong.

    Firstly, how could you prove or disprove a claim of cherry-picking? One way: Define the whole set of examples to draw from (everything every Jewish intellectual ever said in a historical time frame), and then a method for sampling from that set, and see whether the set of examples that MacDonald drew were representative of all statements of all Jewish intellectuals.*3* Cofnas doesn’t do this. *4**5* My guess is that no history ever written about a subject this size, that had any thesis, including CofC, would survive this standard (or has been subjected to it, due to impracticality). This does not mean that all of history is “wrong” or “pseudo-science” as Cofnas puts it.

    MacDonald’s theory of Jewish hypocrisy as applied to the whole Jewish community is easily demonstrably true, by just looking at the organizations that Jews give money to. Jews give money to organizations that promote universalistic policies for their hosts, and particularist policies for Israel to a *vastly* greater degree than the reverse. (Who gets more money from Jews, AIPAC, or the BDS movement? The SPLC and ADL, or Amren?) For Jews, it is: ethno-nationalism for me in Israel, and universal egalitarianism for their host nations in the diaspora, and they put money behind organization that promote those causes, and money is a very measurable statistic. Why is the most parsimonious assumption, the “default” hypothesis, that Jewish intellectuals are primarily motivated by the same things that motivate high-IQ, urban whites, when hypocritical self-interest is what so clearly motivates the community’s money?

    *0* Stephen Isaacs said that Jews “aren’t liberal voters.” That they are the “most self-interested voters in the society” and that they “are afraid of the right” and the Republican party because it had historically been the party that “housed most of the anti-Semites.” He explained that this solved the “paradox” of Jews supposedly voting against their own interests, as the wealthiest group in American society, by voting Democratic and not Republican. Watch his interview with him and Bill Buckley, esp., starting at 24 min.

    *1* Even the what-about-isms Cofnas uses are mostly laughable. Chomsky is not “anti-Israel.” Marx wasn’t an anti-Semite just because he said the Jewish God is money, and his anecdote about Freud proves nothing.*7*

    *2* Did Guns, Germs and Steel, or Hitler’s Willing Executioners cite sources on both sides in a statistically unbiased way? How were they received in contrast to how CofC has been received?

    *3* And it would be a monumental undertaking to try.

    *4* But, that’s also tricky, because MacDonald’s theory is specifically about Jewish misbehavior and hypocrisy, and people are often careful to conceal their misbehavior.

    *5* Did Jews who were austensible universalists push universalisms for their Israel as assiduously as they did for their hosts? Did the ethnonationalistic Israel-supporting Jews alt support ethnonationalism for their hosts in the diaspora as assiduously as they did for Israel.*6*

    *6* This opens up a whole different discussion about how egregious it is to tolerate a people within your nation that has conflicting loyalties to a foreign one.

    *7* The whole quibble about Freud is an anachronism. Cofnas is projecting Israel’s current status as a strong long-established nation, with the status it had almost a century ago, when it was mostly a band of terrorists. It would be like comparing the statements of mainstream “white Christian intellectuals” about a group of white nationalists who cordoned off a part of Canada to form an ethnostate by force *today* vs. how they would talk about it in the year 2100 when it was established and thriving. “John Doe intellectual in 2018 was anti-annexing-Alberta. Therefore he was a self-hating-White.” The comparison is absurd.

    Read More
    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Why is the “default” hypothesis that Jews push leftist causes because they’re higher-IQ, more urban Christians? Why is that more parsimonious than self-interest?
     
    A. Leftist causes often run counter to 'Jewish interests'.

    B. Each individual Jew's self-interest is only somewhat defined by their Judaism.

    C. No individual is entirely selfish.

    These are pretty basic observations. To counter them on this site commenters have to posit that Jews are extraordinarily ethno-centric, that Jews are uniquely selfish and that somehow leftist causes exactly mirror Jewish interests even when they obviously don't.

    None of these have any particular evidence to them. Two of them essentially define Jews as less than human and the other results in the most absurd logical contortions and conspiracy theorising.

    Holding such beliefs literally makes you bad and stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. geokat62 says:

    I originally posted this comment under the Cofnas thread. I think it deserves to be reposted here.

    ———————————

    Came across this terrific, but lengthy, interview by Luke Ford (someone with an Anglo-Saxon background who converted to Orthodox Judaism) of both Prof. Kevin MacDonald and PhD candidate Nathan Confas, the co-author of this article.

    Given the length of the video, I decided to transcribe what I consider to be the most interesting segment of the exchange between Ford and Confas, which begins at 20:40:33:

    Luke Ford – Is anti-Jewish sentiment always irrational?

    Nathan Cofnas – Ah (very long pause) in that general sense, I would say “no.” But a big deal of anti-Jewish sentiment is irrational.

    Luke Ford – Oh, for example, every major American Jewish organization promotes immigration amnesty. They want the 20 to 30 million people in this country here illegally – now, generally low IQ types – who are here in this country illegally, they want to grant them amnesty. And when they make their arguments, they never talk about what’s good for America. They talk about you know these lofty, philosophical, moral things. And so I see all the major Jewish organizations, and that includes the Orthodox Union and the Agudath Israel, they are trying to fill my bedroom with poisonous snakes. And so how do I feel about people who try to fill my bedroom with poisonous snakes? I don’t bother about differentiating, I just hate these organizations, and I hate the people who run them, and it’s just like passionate.. and I’m Jewish. So, what is the non-Jew going to think when they see every major American Jewish organization, you know, try to inject poison into the American bloodstream?

    Nathan Cofnas – That’s why, as I’ve argued publicly, I think organizations like the ADL are very bad for the Jews in that they are causing much more antisemitism then they’re preventing. In fact, I think they do nothing to prevent antisemitism, at all. I understand why people resent these organizations and why they might blame Jews. Because these organizations themselves pretend to speak on behalf of the Jewish community. So, a non-Jew could take them at their word and say “ok, you represent the Jewish community and you’re advocating something unreasonable”… and, maybe, Jews are unreasonable.

    Luke Ford – How much responsibility do ordinary Jews have that their leaders are hell bent by injecting poison into the American bloodstream?

    Nathan Cofnas – That’s an interesting ethical question. What kind of responsibility does a community have for collective action, the actions of its leaders? I think the Jewish community does have some responsibility to push back against these self-appointed leaders in a more public and aggressive way than we have. I think, insofar as we can be held collectively responsible for our actions, I think Jews have made mistakes in these areas.

    While this is pretty consistent with what I’ve been saying for quite some time, it’s refreshing to see someone from the Jewish community who is honest enough to admit this. Could you imagine our resident maven ever admitting to something like this? I couldn’t.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @iffen
    I think it deserves to be reposted here.

    Where would the world be if compulsive copy and pasters didn't think that their copied material shouldn't be pasted as many times and in as many places as possible?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Forgive me if I'am being dim or lazy but who is "our resident maven"?
    , @Frankie P
    Thank you for typing out that interesting exchange between Ford and Confas. It certainly focuses on some of the troubling actions of the organized American Jewish community as a whole, and Ford does NOT pussyfoot around with his feelings; he gets right down to it with strong, emotional language. I wonder if action will be taken to rescind his conversion for his ignoring the concept of omerta. An additional note of interest is one that Wally alludes to in his response to iffen, and that is the replies to your post by iffen and Wizard, both falling into the category of defenders of Israel and Jewish interests as a whole. The curious case of the dog that didn't bark. Neither address the pithy issues in the exchange between Ford and Confas, both deflect and dissemble with peripheral trivial issues, iffen critizing repeated postings of an excellent post (again without addressing the issues), and the Wiz wondering who the maven may be, when a cursory scrolling through earlier comments would yield copious evidence of Lot's eternal, stinky diarrhea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Max Denken
    Not quite. I have keen respect for KMD's intelligence and academic procedure. I have none for the noisy Nazizoid followers. I only wish KMD cared to turn his analytical gifts on his followers and separated their sound beliefs from their psychotic ones. But he doesn't, and that tells me something.

    As to the anti-immigration movement, I've been at it passively for 30 years of which the last 11 actively. Jews quite offended by KMD's writings, like Larry Auster and others whose books and contributions are featured at VDare.com, AmRen, C.I.S. etc have been at it for all those 20 years or more. A Jew, Steven Miller, is the greatest friend we have in the WH, Trump included. Another anti-immigration power, Steve Bannon, ran an [inter alia] anti-immigration publishing outfit founded by two Jews in Jerusalem. So what's this about "anathemizing" the anti-immigration movement. If this movement were limited to KMD acolytes alone, we can say goodbye and switch off the lights.

    ‘Jews quite offended by KMD’s writings, like Larry Auster and others whose books and contributions are featured at VDare.com, AmRen, C.I.S. etc have been at it for all those 20 years or more’

    and thier reasoned detailed scholarly rebutals (of CoC) are where? Ive looked. As for Auster it is pretty clear from his writing where his true allegiences lie and I regard him as just another gatekeeper. Thanks for mention Amren whose founder considers Jews white and so to begin with does not see a conflict of interest between Jews and whites regarding immigration. you have a keen respect for his ‘intelligence and academic procedure’ and yet you write ‘I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    “By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances’

    I mean do you realise that Kevin Mcdobald is on record as saying that anyone with an IQ less than 120 shouldn’t publicly discuss the Jewish question? That he has stated that he is ‘horrified’ by the daily stormer. Your fake regard for his intelligence and academic procedure aside, trying to cast a retired academic who has actually given up on the study of Jews and moved onto Europeans, as some kind of Nazi leader is particularly insidious. But seriously why am I arguing with a troll concerned or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Weaver1
    Auster would freak out if a topic went into unwanted territory. That was his defence mechanism. He supposedly posted well on other topics, however.

    Stephen Miller is the unusual one, because of his apparent sincerity and forthrightness. Another example was Marcus Epstein (half Korean, half Jewish) who was once condemned as a "white nationalist" for simply being friends with the Buchanans.

    I don't really know enough to make a list of "good Jews". Breitbart and Antiwar (many Jews there?) are fascinating.

    -

    Regarding IQ, I believe an additional requirement should be that a person has been educated by a Paleo. Too many comment on Jews without seeming to have the most basic understanding of culture, history and political science. For example, Dr. Fleming likes Aristotle's Politics. If a person is familiar with that, it's a great start. There are just a few books I believe a person should be familiar with to have a basic level of education. Paleos tend to have a list of maybe 20 books or so, but it's really not an overwhelming number to read to achieve "educated" status.

    My intent isn't to be condescending; my intent is to say that while IQ is important, it is not everything. If a person can't become Christian, then he should at least be familiar with the classical pagans (and possibly also some Christian works even if lacking faith.) The schools teach a great deal, just little to do with education.
    , @Max Denken
    You are foaming at the mouth as you people usually do. I have no time for this level of discourse. Until you and yours sober up, you have forfeited the legitimacy of the JQ issues you care about, some of which are valid, important and worthy of a wide public debate. You do not serve your cause well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Weaver1 says:

    I don’t know if it contributes anything, but the topic reminds me of Brahmins in India, how they seemed to serve their caste’s group interests, and perhaps also the interests of Hindu society as a whole, by enhancing the complexity of sacrifices, expanding the need for their services.

    So, Brahmans were perhaps an example of symbiosis in Hindu society. At other times, we see elite groups act as parasites.

    We have similar elite struggles in society today, not only by Jews. I’m from the US South. A popular competitor to “blame Jews for many of our problems” is “blame Yankee WASPs”. Also, it’s popular to blame “Communists”, without specifying just which groups tended to be Communists (Jewish and immigrant).

    A concern of mine is always that if we blame others overmuch, we’ll overlook our own flaws. I believe a true elite, a true winning people, figure how to win, don’t simply blame others for the lost utopia.

    So, I tend to blame Anglos for our destruction, simply because I hope that we’ll rise from our ashes just as Rome did after being sacked by Brennus.

    Jews are clearly very powerful in US and European societies today, but their power is also clearly declining. The “Left” in both Europe and the US do not support Israel and perceives Jews as largely European or at least as racist.

    This could mean that Jews suddenly become pro-European, which is fascinating since they’re currently so obsessed with Hitler (or the Cossacks) and the notion that nationalism/tradition leads to gas chambers… One odd example is in how Neocons tend to support Ukrainian nationalists who at least claim to believe things that should be objectionable to Jews. Another odd example is the past friendly relationship between South Africa and Israel.

    Nationalists, however, want a large middle class, do not like the idea of enthroned elites, especially not an elite that identifies as foreign (Jewish). So, it’ll be interesting to see what happens. Jews, consciously or not, wish to preserve their status and wealth, prevent any potential threat to their position. Nationalists wish for a more equitable society. And Leftists (Muslims, Latinos, blacks) wish to overthrow both.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Weaver1 says:
    @edward smith
    'Jews quite offended by KMD’s writings, like Larry Auster and others whose books and contributions are featured at VDare.com, AmRen, C.I.S. etc have been at it for all those 20 years or more'

    and thier reasoned detailed scholarly rebutals (of CoC) are where? Ive looked. As for Auster it is pretty clear from his writing where his true allegiences lie and I regard him as just another gatekeeper. Thanks for mention Amren whose founder considers Jews white and so to begin with does not see a conflict of interest between Jews and whites regarding immigration. you have a keen respect for his 'intelligence and academic procedure' and yet you write ‘I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    “By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances'

    I mean do you realise that Kevin Mcdobald is on record as saying that anyone with an IQ less than 120 shouldn't publicly discuss the Jewish question? That he has stated that he is 'horrified' by the daily stormer. Your fake regard for his intelligence and academic procedure aside, trying to cast a retired academic who has actually given up on the study of Jews and moved onto Europeans, as some kind of Nazi leader is particularly insidious. But seriously why am I arguing with a troll concerned or not.

    Auster would freak out if a topic went into unwanted territory. That was his defence mechanism. He supposedly posted well on other topics, however.

    Stephen Miller is the unusual one, because of his apparent sincerity and forthrightness. Another example was Marcus Epstein (half Korean, half Jewish) who was once condemned as a “white nationalist” for simply being friends with the Buchanans.

    I don’t really know enough to make a list of “good Jews”. Breitbart and Antiwar (many Jews there?) are fascinating.

    -

    Regarding IQ, I believe an additional requirement should be that a person has been educated by a Paleo. Too many comment on Jews without seeming to have the most basic understanding of culture, history and political science. For example, Dr. Fleming likes Aristotle’s Politics. If a person is familiar with that, it’s a great start. There are just a few books I believe a person should be familiar with to have a basic level of education. Paleos tend to have a list of maybe 20 books or so, but it’s really not an overwhelming number to read to achieve “educated” status.

    My intent isn’t to be condescending; my intent is to say that while IQ is important, it is not everything. If a person can’t become Christian, then he should at least be familiar with the classical pagans (and possibly also some Christian works even if lacking faith.) The schools teach a great deal, just little to do with education.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. 36 ulster says:
    @Max Denken
    Not quite. I have keen respect for KMD's intelligence and academic procedure. I have none for the noisy Nazizoid followers. I only wish KMD cared to turn his analytical gifts on his followers and separated their sound beliefs from their psychotic ones. But he doesn't, and that tells me something.

    As to the anti-immigration movement, I've been at it passively for 30 years of which the last 11 actively. Jews quite offended by KMD's writings, like Larry Auster and others whose books and contributions are featured at VDare.com, AmRen, C.I.S. etc have been at it for all those 20 years or more. A Jew, Steven Miller, is the greatest friend we have in the WH, Trump included. Another anti-immigration power, Steve Bannon, ran an [inter alia] anti-immigration publishing outfit founded by two Jews in Jerusalem. So what's this about "anathemizing" the anti-immigration movement. If this movement were limited to KMD acolytes alone, we can say goodbye and switch off the lights.

    Good comments concerning Mr. MacDonald’s essay. “Edward Smith’s” criticisms of you and the late, patriotic Lawrence Auster are great examples of how one can be tyrannized by small differences–or by the purity of one’s convictions, as the case may be. By the way, I very much appreciated your recent essay on the recent tensions between the Polish and Israeli governments, and of the complexity of the relationship between Poland’s Jews and Catholics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Denken
    Thank you. I didn't like Auster's personality, but so what? He was the American Socrates; opened more American eyes in the special, pithy way of his than anyone else I can think of. Of course, written off by the Streicher-Yockey-Weber-Linder-MacDonald-Sunic crowd because of his tainted DNA.

    Among many others, I've published a total of 5 essays with some comments about Jews, always negative but carefully and judiciously so. In each case I disclosed, to be fair, that I am part Jewish and that my parents were victims of the Holocausts (pl). You have no idea what stream of insult and obloquy outpoured in the comments section of each of those, usually of the sort that I am a joojoojoo doing PR work for the joos and my jooing won't joo the white people. These keepers of the purity of the race are such morons that they are several levels below Adolf himself. As as a mischlinge and a born Catholic, I'd qualify enough as a German to be drafted to the 3rd Reich Wehrmacht, but for these people my arguments are tainted because I am a joo. I must say, my respect for his intellect notwithstanding, that Dr. MacDonald has resorted to this kind of blanket dismissal of blood-tainted critics in probably more than Pinker, Auster, and one other case I know of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Mr. Cofnas,

    I did not read all, but most of your comments/replies.

    In my experience high-IQ, urban gentiles are highly influenced by elite publications and publishing houses, etc., many of which are controlled by ethnic Jews, so, in my opinion, their attitudes and worldview are often not completely their own and rather conformist.

    The New York Times consciously targets 30 million upper-middle class and affluent Americans. It is a national newspaper; only about 11 percent of its readership is in New York. - http://www.unz.com/article/the-elites-have-no-credibility-left/#p_1_17:2-30


    The emergence of Israel as the Messianic fulfillment of the Judaic dream, in addition to adding tangible religious dimension to World Judaism outside America, made the American Jews the most pervasive ethnic influence of America. This was so since American Judaism, like American Catholicism, having penetrated both political parties, could affect the policies of any USA administration. The Jewish campaign, conducted with hammering persistence via a national media, a large proportion of which was controlled by Jewish interests, affected the policy of the USA.
    [...]
    – http://www.reformation.org/holoc14.html The Vatican’s Holocaust By Avro Manhattan
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/the-killing-of-history/#comment-2019265

    Avro Manhattan was ethnically Jewish:

    Born in Milan, Italy on April 6, 1914 to American and Swiss/Dutch parents of Jewish extraction, Manhattan was originally known as "Teofilo Lucifero Gardini" in his early days in Italy.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Manhattan#Life_and_career

    I would also like to draw your attention to this article by Paul Gottfried, in which he distinguishes between the behaviors of Eastern and Western European Jews:

    Eastern European Jews and the Case of the Marginalized Elite

    The Dissident Right may find Verbeeten controversial as well. Though Kevin MacDonald argues his theory about Jewish group behavior ably, I believe it is unwarranted to generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior of Eastern European Jews. [In Search of Anti-Semitism, by Paul Gottfried, Takimag, April 6, 2009] Other Jewish immigrants in other times and places have behaved very differently, including backing causes which today would be called reactionary or even “racist.”
     
    - http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/eastern-european-jews-and-the-case-of-the-marginalized-elite/


    The interviewer’s and Mr. Rosenthal’s Jewish identity and their concern for Israel feature prominently in this insightful interview:
    [...]
    Abraham Michael “A.M.” Rosenthal was a New York Times executive editor and columnist. Rosenthal won a Pulitzer Prize in 1960 for international reporting.

    In this episode of the Leon Charney report, A.M. Rosenthal talks about his experience being a Jewish Journalist, and discusses the issues in the middle east, religion, human rights.
    [...]
    He was hired when Max Frankel was executive editor (1986-1994). Mr. Frankel is Jewish too, but he is of German-Jewish descent, whereas Mr. Rosenthal was of Eastern-European Jewish descent, I believe; read about the important and big difference this can make here:

    Eastern European Jews and the Case of the Marginalized Elite

    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/eastern-european-jews-and-the-case-of-the-marginalized-elite/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/the-elites-have-no-credibility-left/#comment-2038592

    Hajnal line
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

    big summary post on the hajnal line

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

    https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/individualism-map-2-hajnal-line.jpg
    , @anon
    Nathan,

    6/8 of Sweden's largest "morning" and "evening" newspapers are owned by families with significant Jewish heritage (Hjorne and Bonnier). The other 2/8 by "foreign banks."

    See these comments:
    comment 1
    comment 2
    comment 3
    It doesn't require an "ad hoc" explanation to understand how Jewish families have tremendous influence in Sweden despite their small numbers*: “How is it that your royal family is as powerful as my royal family, when my royal family has twice as many members? Incon-theivable!”

    Also, are Germans maybe stricken by Holocaust guilt?

    * * *

    Cofnas, I've been trying to find good *primary* sources on Ashkenazi IQ and I'm having a hard time. The sources I have found give estimates all over the map. Maybe you are familiar with such sources, esp., since Jewish intelligence is referenced in your paper.

    See, for example, this table. The studies with the largest sample sizes are Backman and Shuey (1236 and 764) and the IQ scores listed are 107.8 and "1.2 below the white mean."**
    Also, this blogger estimated the Jewish IQ to be 102
    by averaging a set of scores. You could argue that they should have been weighted and summed differently, but it begs the questions: how and why? Also, is this comment true?: “I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools.” I often see the number 115 quoted for Ashkenazi IQ. I wonder where 115 is coming from? Perhaps a cherry picking of the highest-end estimate.

    And, if the Jewish IQ advantage were genetic in origin, why does the only data we have on Jewish brain size, discussed by Maurice Fishberg, suggest that their brains are smaller than white Gentile brains by 2 cubic inches? You could note that Cochran provides evidence of heterozygote advantage for Tay-Sachs-like diseases, but the Irish also have a high rate of Tay-Sachs. Are they known for their high IQs?

    * Jews are less than 0.5% of Sweden's population
    ** The highest score is actually an estimate by MacDonald (117), but he also says that he defers to Lynn on this data, and I believe Lynn's estimate to currently be around 111, but I don't know how he came to that number, because I don't have his raw data.

    , @anon
    How common would it be for leading Jewish public intellectuals like Christina Hoff Sommers and Steven Pinker to very publicly and without reservation, lend their support/endorsement *1* to a paper whose core thesis were that: Whites were over-represented relative to blacks in *any* category (billionaires, academics, Nobel prizes winner, intellectual movements) because they have higher IQs than blacks, as your paper alleges the cause of the disparity between Whites and Jews is?

    Pinker's comment
    Christina's comment.
    She called MacDonald's work "anti-semitic." Why is it anti-Semitic to say that Jews are biased and have double standards, (or ad hominem, as you accused MacDonald of engaging in)*4* but it's not anti-Gentilic to say that whites are underrepresented because they're just dumber than Jews are? Would not such an explanation for White Black disparities be widely denounced as racist?

    Also, why is it "ad hominem" for MacDonald to suggest (in a glancing and debatable way) that you're biased, and not ad hominem for you to call his work "shoddy" and suggest he's incompetent. "You're biased" well "you're incompetent." I don't see how either of these are ad hominem assuming both accusations were made in good faith. And, since MacDonald's core thesis is that Jews often engage in motivated reasoning, and, a disclosure of your heritage was not apparent in your papers, *2* (I didn't see it, is it there?), wasn't it particularly apt in this case to mention it, if only in the most ambiguous and glancing way?

    *1* In the last 60 years?

    *2* Maybe you could have disclosed your Jewish background in the 1st or 2nd portion of the paper.*3* (Though this would probably not be necessary if your name were Mordechai Cofnasowitz)

    *3* If a black academic had accused white academics of engaging in white supremacy, exclusionary nepotism, and self-serving academic bias, against blacks, and a white academic with a not-obviously white name had written a critical response, I'd think it appropriate that he note his ethnic background in his paper in an obvious way.

    *4* By the way, is it not the height of hypocrisy, for a Jew to accuse someone of ad hominem for dismissing his criticism because he's a Jew, when Gentiles get dismissed as anti-Semites all the time for offering the most modest of criticisms for Jews or Israel? Jews also occasionally get accused of being self-haters if they go *much* further, but to pretend that there's no double standard in how Jews treat from within and without would be ridiculous. This is another example of the "Jew cries out in paid as he strike you" phenonomen.

    , @FKA Max
    Second reply from Professor MacDonald to Nathan Cofnas:

    Abstract
    Nathan Cofnas has responded to my reply to his Human Nature article on my book, The Culture of Critique. These are my comments on his reply. - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324164802_SECOND_REPLY_TO_NATHAN_COFNAS

    FYI, Mr. Cofnas:

    Both Cofnas and Gelman keep emphasizing geography as one of the main explanations for Jewish overrepresentation at Harvard, Yale, etc.

    What they don’t seem to factor in though, is that the Haredi community is almost exclusively based in the Northeast and they, currently, make up about 10% of the total U.S. Jewish population, therefore they are about 20% of the northeastern Jewish population.
    [...]
    Since Haredi Jews mostly don’t attend regular universities and pursue religious rather than intellectual/scientific studies, even though they are mostly based in “major urban centers”, at least 10% of the Jewish community, in the northeastern United States and in the United Kingdom likely closer to 20%, would not apply to elite universities, which makes the Jewish overrepresentation at the Ivy League, etc. even starker than Mr. Unz documented
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/judaism-as-a-group-evolutionary-strategy/#comment-2263615


    Kevin MacDonald
    ‏@TOOEdit

    My second reply to Nathan Cofnas. Warning: it is long and tedious but, I think necessary.


    https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/980905890386608128
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Nathan Cofnas
    I have responded to Kevin MacDonald's reply here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323918530_Kevin_MacDonald%27s_Response_with_Comments_by_Nathan_Cofnas

    Mr. Cofnas,

    I did not read all, but most of your comments/replies.

    In my experience high-IQ, urban gentiles are highly influenced by elite publications and publishing houses, etc., many of which are controlled by ethnic Jews, so, in my opinion, their attitudes and worldview are often not completely their own and rather conformist.

    The New York Times consciously targets 30 million upper-middle class and affluent Americans. It is a national newspaper; only about 11 percent of its readership is in New York.http://www.unz.com/article/the-elites-have-no-credibility-left/#p_1_17:2-30

    The emergence of Israel as the Messianic fulfillment of the Judaic dream, in addition to adding tangible religious dimension to World Judaism outside America, made the American Jews the most pervasive ethnic influence of America. This was so since American Judaism, like American Catholicism, having penetrated both political parties, could affect the policies of any USA administration. The Jewish campaign, conducted with hammering persistence via a national media, a large proportion of which was controlled by Jewish interests, affected the policy of the USA.
    [...]
    http://www.reformation.org/holoc14.html The Vatican’s Holocaust By Avro Manhattan

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-killing-of-history/#comment-2019265

    Avro Manhattan was ethnically Jewish:

    Born in Milan, Italy on April 6, 1914 to American and Swiss/Dutch parents of Jewish extraction, Manhattan was originally known as “Teofilo Lucifero Gardini” in his early days in Italy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Manhattan#Life_and_career

    I would also like to draw your attention to this article by Paul Gottfried, in which he distinguishes between the behaviors of Eastern and Western European Jews:

    Eastern European Jews and the Case of the Marginalized Elite

    The Dissident Right may find Verbeeten controversial as well. Though Kevin MacDonald argues his theory about Jewish group behavior ably, I believe it is unwarranted to generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior of Eastern European Jews. [In Search of Anti-Semitism, by Paul Gottfried, Takimag, April 6, 2009] Other Jewish immigrants in other times and places have behaved very differently, including backing causes which today would be called reactionary or even “racist.”

    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/eastern-european-jews-and-the-case-of-the-marginalized-elite/

    The interviewer’s and Mr. Rosenthal’s Jewish identity and their concern for Israel feature prominently in this insightful interview:
    [...]
    Abraham Michael “A.M.” Rosenthal was a New York Times executive editor and columnist. Rosenthal won a Pulitzer Prize in 1960 for international reporting.

    In this episode of the Leon Charney report, A.M. Rosenthal talks about his experience being a Jewish Journalist, and discusses the issues in the middle east, religion, human rights.
    [...]
    He was hired when Max Frankel was executive editor (1986-1994). Mr. Frankel is Jewish too, but he is of German-Jewish descent, whereas Mr. Rosenthal was of Eastern-European Jewish descent, I believe; read about the important and big difference this can make here:

    Eastern European Jews and the Case of the Marginalized Elite

    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/eastern-european-jews-and-the-case-of-the-marginalized-elite/

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-elites-have-no-credibility-left/#comment-2038592

    Hajnal line

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

    big summary post on the hajnal line

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. anon[272] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nathan Cofnas
    I have responded to Kevin MacDonald's reply here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323918530_Kevin_MacDonald%27s_Response_with_Comments_by_Nathan_Cofnas

    Nathan,

    6/8 of Sweden’s largest “morning” and “evening” newspapers are owned by families with significant Jewish heritage (Hjorne and Bonnier). The other 2/8 by “foreign banks.”

    See these comments:
    comment 1
    comment 2
    comment 3
    It doesn’t require an “ad hoc” explanation to understand how Jewish families have tremendous influence in Sweden despite their small numbers*: “How is it that your royal family is as powerful as my royal family, when my royal family has twice as many members? Incon-theivable!”

    Also, are Germans maybe stricken by Holocaust guilt?

    * * *

    Cofnas, I’ve been trying to find good *primary* sources on Ashkenazi IQ and I’m having a hard time. The sources I have found give estimates all over the map. Maybe you are familiar with such sources, esp., since Jewish intelligence is referenced in your paper.

    See, for example, this table. The studies with the largest sample sizes are Backman and Shuey (1236 and 764) and the IQ scores listed are 107.8 and “1.2 below the white mean.”**
    Also, this blogger estimated the Jewish IQ to be 102
    by averaging a set of scores. You could argue that they should have been weighted and summed differently, but it begs the questions: how and why? Also, is this comment true?: “I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools.” I often see the number 115 quoted for Ashkenazi IQ. I wonder where 115 is coming from? Perhaps a cherry picking of the highest-end estimate.

    And, if the Jewish IQ advantage were genetic in origin, why does the only data we have on Jewish brain size, discussed by Maurice Fishberg, suggest that their brains are smaller than white Gentile brains by 2 cubic inches? You could note that Cochran provides evidence of heterozygote advantage for Tay-Sachs-like diseases, but the Irish also have a high rate of Tay-Sachs. Are they known for their high IQs?

    * Jews are less than 0.5% of Sweden’s population
    ** The highest score is actually an estimate by MacDonald (117), but he also says that he defers to Lynn on this data, and I believe Lynn’s estimate to currently be around 111, but I don’t know how he came to that number, because I don’t have his raw data.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Oops, I missed this link. The quote I find most interesting is: “I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools.”

    Yes, I wonder how representative are these studies? Esp., when you consider that Israel's IQ tends to be estimated at or below 95. (some of the studies have included Arabs and some excluded, and unfortunately none of then separated "Oriental" Jews which requires a employing a crude weighting and summing scheme to estimate the Ashkenazi score, as Lynn uses.)

    Also, this page notes that Tay-Sachs is also common among the Irish, Cajuns and a population of French Canadians. Perhaps frequency in some small inbred groups is due to genetic drift and not selection for IQ, as I've seen suggested in at least one paper.

    , @Wally
    "Also, are Germans maybe stricken by Holocaust guilt?"

    But they shouldn't be. There was no '6M Jews' except in the sick minds of dishonest Jews .... from at least 1823.

    Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1823:

    https://imgur.com/a/0LFFF
    and:
    http://balder.org/judea/New-York-Times-Six-Million-Jews-Since-1869.php
    http://balder.org/judea/billeder-judea/Scan-New-York-Times-Six-Million-Since-1869-Composite.jpg

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. anon[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    Nathan,

    6/8 of Sweden's largest "morning" and "evening" newspapers are owned by families with significant Jewish heritage (Hjorne and Bonnier). The other 2/8 by "foreign banks."

    See these comments:
    comment 1
    comment 2
    comment 3
    It doesn't require an "ad hoc" explanation to understand how Jewish families have tremendous influence in Sweden despite their small numbers*: “How is it that your royal family is as powerful as my royal family, when my royal family has twice as many members? Incon-theivable!”

    Also, are Germans maybe stricken by Holocaust guilt?

    * * *

    Cofnas, I've been trying to find good *primary* sources on Ashkenazi IQ and I'm having a hard time. The sources I have found give estimates all over the map. Maybe you are familiar with such sources, esp., since Jewish intelligence is referenced in your paper.

    See, for example, this table. The studies with the largest sample sizes are Backman and Shuey (1236 and 764) and the IQ scores listed are 107.8 and "1.2 below the white mean."**
    Also, this blogger estimated the Jewish IQ to be 102
    by averaging a set of scores. You could argue that they should have been weighted and summed differently, but it begs the questions: how and why? Also, is this comment true?: “I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools.” I often see the number 115 quoted for Ashkenazi IQ. I wonder where 115 is coming from? Perhaps a cherry picking of the highest-end estimate.

    And, if the Jewish IQ advantage were genetic in origin, why does the only data we have on Jewish brain size, discussed by Maurice Fishberg, suggest that their brains are smaller than white Gentile brains by 2 cubic inches? You could note that Cochran provides evidence of heterozygote advantage for Tay-Sachs-like diseases, but the Irish also have a high rate of Tay-Sachs. Are they known for their high IQs?

    * Jews are less than 0.5% of Sweden's population
    ** The highest score is actually an estimate by MacDonald (117), but he also says that he defers to Lynn on this data, and I believe Lynn's estimate to currently be around 111, but I don't know how he came to that number, because I don't have his raw data.

    Oops, I missed this link. The quote I find most interesting is: “I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools.”

    Yes, I wonder how representative are these studies? Esp., when you consider that Israel’s IQ tends to be estimated at or below 95. (some of the studies have included Arabs and some excluded, and unfortunately none of then separated “Oriental” Jews which requires a employing a crude weighting and summing scheme to estimate the Ashkenazi score, as Lynn uses.)

    Also, this page notes that Tay-Sachs is also common among the Irish, Cajuns and a population of French Canadians. Perhaps frequency in some small inbred groups is due to genetic drift and not selection for IQ, as I’ve seen suggested in at least one paper.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The proper names for “ Oriental” Jews are Persian, Sephardi and Mizrahi.

    The Persians are reasonably intelligent. The Mizrahi are low IQ.

    It’s complicated by the fact that the low IQ Haredim and other fanatic sects whose children are educated in a low performance private school system are very light skinned ashkenazis from E Europe. That may be one reason why the average Jewish IQ in Israel is 95.

    The Israeli government has admitted that the reason it recruited so many Russians was to raise the level of the population.

    70 years of the Haredim living on child benefit instead of working contributes to the low IQ level of Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. The Protestant Reformation is the main reason for Jewish involvement in various political and intellectual movements, which may seem Universalist on the surface, but as Mr. MacDonald has pointed out, are indeed ethnically driven.

    Protestantism goes hand in hand with Secularism and Ethnic Nationalism.

    Secularism does not require Jews to convert to Christianity in order to participate in Civic life in the Western World.

    Ethnic Nationalism was promoted by Martin Luther in his attacks on the Catholic Church and his translation of the Bible into a common German vernacular.

    This then opened the door to to ethnic Romanticism and the revival of folk languages, arts, and music across Europe, as well as ethnocentric political movements, in which Zionism is just one of many. As was Nazism.

    This then results in a “Blood and Soil” mentality ,whether it be in Israel, Serbia, Russia, or anywhere else.

    Though America , and perhaps Canada, are historical exceptions to this. The North American version of “Blood and Soil” is more like the Hazing that goes on when you try to join a Fraternity in College.

    So you can convert to being American, but you cannot convert to being an ethnic Jew.

    Though you could try to convert to the religion of Judaism. However, the Rabbis are obligated to dissuade you, which is probably for the best, because within five generations, your offspring would be considered, ETHNIC JEWS, and then would claim to be original descendants of the country which we are now calling Israel!

    Prior to the Protestant Reformation if you had left Judaism (or were excommunicated), you would simply join the once Universal Catholic Church, where you would then proceed to attack , or advocate for, fellows Jews from within the confines of The Church.

    Which also occurred during the Communist era.

    I should add that while many remember Karl Marx to be a Jew, I prefer to remember him as a fellow Lutheran.

    Jewish apostates tend to be returned to the fold after they are dead. Which is also the case with Spinoza and Jesus.

    That’s right, some Jews have to be dead for a specific period of time, before they are considered Jewish again. Obviously there is a Talmudic way of calculating this “waiting” period. For Marx it was only a few days A.D., for Jesus, a few thousand years.

    As for Marx:

    In the US, Jews who immigrated from Eastern Europe abandoned Marxism, Communism, or involvement in the Labor Movement as their economic status improved.

    One might argue that their economic status improved due to the immigration of non white low skilled workers from the developing world, or high skilled immigrants who typically undercut the wages of other native born workers.

    Obviously this serves the interests of corporate elites, most of whom are not Jewish.

    This is also why immigration was promoted in the middle of the Civil Rights Movement.

    This was done to achieve several things:
    1) It maintained white supremacy at the very top of US Society.
    2) It pitted white working class people against black working class people. And with that, the rapid deconstruction of labor unions.
    and,
    3) As a reward, Jews were then able to raise up a tiny “chosen few” of other ethnic minority groups, who would then defend their various causes, or Israel since 1967.

    Here again, most of those causes served only to make you poorer.

    Let’s take woman’s “rights” in the work place as an example:

    This did indeed destroy the Family Wage which men used to earn working 40 hours a week.

    Which was replaced by two family members working 80 or more hours a week, for a combined income which is less than what one man used to earn alone back in the sixties, adjusted for inflation.

    With the destruction of your wages complete, Jews then turn their attention toward various “humanitarian” causes and charitable activities, which here again, serves the interests of other wealthy elites.

    I don’t have the space to list them all here.

    However, the stunning range of activities, on both the left and the right, funded by the vary same Jewish Institutions, who seem to fund anything as long as the word “Jewish” is on the grant application. ……You know, because they are keeping young people interested in “Judaism” which now includes Transgenderism, though next year may include funding Bar Mitzvahs for pet iguanas.

    If promoting LGBTXYZ and Iguana Rights lifted the income of the poor in my country or abroad, I might consider it a worthy activity. However, as any straight man knows, this is a potential weapon that can be used against him in the workplace.

    Which is what multiculturalism, feminism, and identity politics generally does.

    It is designed to break solidarity amongst workers and make you live in fear of the person working next to you. It turns the workplace into a cultural mine field where workers never know exactly what the right or wrong thing to do or say is. In such a situation, he who speaks the least, lasts the longest.

    Cultural Castration. Soft Totalitarianism.

    In sum,

    Jews are Corporate Tools.

    P.S. I am certified Kosher Caterer, so if you need me to bake a kugel for the Bar Mitzvahs of any of your household pets, please let me know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. I would like to thank Nathan Cofnas for writing his weak and unconvincing criticism of Culture of Critique, because by doing so he prompted Kevin MacDonald to write this excellent response, which contains links to all of his best post-1998 essays at VDARE, TOO, and elsewhere.

    Having all of these links together in one place is a valuable resource.

    Read More
    • Agree: mark green
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Liza says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    I don't see much new in Kevin MacDonald's response to Confas' critique (which is, by the way, too limited & ahistorical). MacDonald has just re-iterated his old claims:

    * Jews "follow group evolutionary strategy". He didn't prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No "strategy" in such a behavior.

    * also, the author's description of "Jewish movements" is non-verifiable & actually difficult to describe. From what I know of Marxism, psychoanalysis or Leninism- these were not "Jewish" movements, neither in intellectual genesis nor with regard to their proponents.
    What about other intellectual currents, prominent in 20th & 21st C? Do these movements or cultural currents qualify as "Jewish": anarchism, free-love leftism, Expressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, German phenomenology in philosophy, cultural critique (Derrida & Foucault following Heidegger), New Left with its post-1968 ideology, multiculturalism as ideology, Jungian archetypal psychology, New Age ideologies, radical Feminism, "New Atheism", evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, various schools of economics (Austrian, Chicago,..), structuralism in humanities, ..?
    I know next to nothing on Boasian anthropology, but I do know quite a lot about Communism & various branches of psychoanalysis, and I don't see how one can show these movement are "Jewish" in origin or history? For instance, except for being Austrian Jew, what is "Jewish" in early, Freudian variant of psychoanalysis? This "school" was a product of German culture during fin de siecle & the general knowledge of psychiatry during these times. What is "Jewish" in its structure, values or general trend, in its goals, or in its map of human psyche?

    * what about areas where ethnic Jews are over-represented in 20th & 21st fields: theoretical physics, all branches of mathematics, chess masters, computer science, violin virtuosi, philanthropists in arts & curators of museums, film directors & producers, ..? Are these areas somehow driven by Jewish interests, whether conscious or not? How can we ascertain this?

    Although I admire MacDonald's work in demolition of maudlin myth the core American Jewish community has over time built about it (eternal victims & universal humanitarians), I don't see his work as dispassionate analysis that would be close to even such a non-exact "science" as evolutionary psychology claims to be. With its broad sweep of generalizations, MacDonald's work on historical traits of Judaism (as culture) is not unlike other historiosophies, similar to St. Augustine, Gioacchino da Fiore, Hegel, Marx or Spengler.

    There are insights in these works- but they are basically an imaginative construction, not more.

    That said, I am sorry MacDonald's work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse, but to dumbification of academia- there is not such thing as intellectual discourse anymore.

    @Bardon. About the overrepresentation of jewz as violin virtuosi. A nonjew, nonasian, ie, a white person, could play like Paganini himself, but whether we know of such a person or not depends on who owns and runs the recording companies, and who is heavily influential in the symphony orchestras and so on. And that is one reason why there appear to be an outlandish number of jews playing classical violin and other classical instruments. In any case, their playing of western music on western instruments is a serious case of cultural appropriation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    About the overrepresentation of jewz as violin virtuosi. A nonjew, nonasian, ie, a white person, could play like Paganini himself, but whether we know of such a person or not depends on who owns and runs the recording companies, and who is heavily influential in the symphony orchestras and so on. And that is one reason why there appear to be an outlandish number of jews playing classical violin and other classical instruments.
     
    I don't quite understand your argument. It seems to me that Jews (alright, persons of Jewish origin) are over-represented as violin virtuosi; this is so clear that needs not evoking some conspiracy theories.

    For instance, Jews are over-represented among art collectors & dealers, but Jewish presence among great 20th C painters is not formidable at all. I can think of only a few visual artists of Jewish origin worth noticing (Modigliani, Soutine, Chagall & perhaps 1-2 others). Also, American Jews are vastly over-represented in publishing industry, but American Jewish imaginative writers (Saul Bellow, Philip Roth,...) are not too numerous when compared with Gentile American novelists (Gaddis, Pynchon, Updike, McCarthy, DeLillo,..).

    There is no need to construct conspiracies when one group of people is more prominent in some areas (blacks in basketball; Jews in performing arts).

    As for cultural appropriation- only good stuff is worthy of being "appropriated".
    , @Vinteuil
    So who do you think lovers of the violin repertoire should have been listening to, instead of Joseph Joachim, Fritz Kreisler, Josef Szigeti, Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin, David Oistrakh, Itzhak Perlman - &c.?
    , @Twodees Partain
    " In any case, their playing of western music on western instruments is a serious case of cultural appropriation."

    Maybe not. They are almost all of European descent without a trace of Semitic ancestry. That was a funny dig you made, though. ;-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. anon[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nathan Cofnas
    I have responded to Kevin MacDonald's reply here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323918530_Kevin_MacDonald%27s_Response_with_Comments_by_Nathan_Cofnas

    How common would it be for leading Jewish public intellectuals like Christina Hoff Sommers and Steven Pinker to very publicly and without reservation, lend their support/endorsement *1* to a paper whose core thesis were that: Whites were over-represented relative to blacks in *any* category (billionaires, academics, Nobel prizes winner, intellectual movements) because they have higher IQs than blacks, as your paper alleges the cause of the disparity between Whites and Jews is?

    Pinker’s comment
    Christina’s comment.
    She called MacDonald’s work “anti-semitic.” Why is it anti-Semitic to say that Jews are biased and have double standards, (or ad hominem, as you accused MacDonald of engaging in)*4* but it’s not anti-Gentilic to say that whites are underrepresented because they’re just dumber than Jews are? Would not such an explanation for White Black disparities be widely denounced as racist?

    Also, why is it “ad hominem” for MacDonald to suggest (in a glancing and debatable way) that you’re biased, and not ad hominem for you to call his work “shoddy” and suggest he’s incompetent. “You’re biased” well “you’re incompetent.” I don’t see how either of these are ad hominem assuming both accusations were made in good faith. And, since MacDonald’s core thesis is that Jews often engage in motivated reasoning, and, a disclosure of your heritage was not apparent in your papers, *2* (I didn’t see it, is it there?), wasn’t it particularly apt in this case to mention it, if only in the most ambiguous and glancing way?

    *1* In the last 60 years?

    *2* Maybe you could have disclosed your Jewish background in the 1st or 2nd portion of the paper.*3* (Though this would probably not be necessary if your name were Mordechai Cofnasowitz)

    *3* If a black academic had accused white academics of engaging in white supremacy, exclusionary nepotism, and self-serving academic bias, against blacks, and a white academic with a not-obviously white name had written a critical response, I’d think it appropriate that he note his ethnic background in his paper in an obvious way.

    *4* By the way, is it not the height of hypocrisy, for a Jew to accuse someone of ad hominem for dismissing his criticism because he’s a Jew, when Gentiles get dismissed as anti-Semites all the time for offering the most modest of criticisms for Jews or Israel? Jews also occasionally get accused of being self-haters if they go *much* further, but to pretend that there’s no double standard in how Jews treat from within and without would be ridiculous. This is another example of the “Jew cries out in paid as he strike you” phenonomen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Last paragraph's penultimate sentence should read: "but to pretend that there’s no double standard in how Jews treat *criticism* from within and without would be ridiculous."

    Also, I wanted to point out that data on Jewish/Gentile IQ disparities are much shoddier than data on White/Black disparities are, for which we have corroborating brain size data and the Minnesota cross-adoption twin study, both of which also bolster the argument for a genetic connection. I hope it isn't simultaneously anti-Semitic for me to say that Jews shouldn't be over-represented in left wing movements because they have higher IQs and simultaneously "racist" to say that whites *should be* over-represented in academia because they have higher IQs, when the evidence for the latter vastly outweighs the evidence for the former? Why does the former garner someone praise and the latter derision and ostracism?

    Evidence for higher Jewish IQ consists of mostly shoddy, non-representative and small sample size studies. The IQ data out of Israel appears to contradict it (even when you factor in the Arab and "Oriental" portions of the Jewish population of Israel, it's hard to see how the Ashkenazis have IQs above 105, probably more like 102). Also, the Tay-Sachs-like-disease explanation is highly speculative. The fact that Jews, like Pinker, run around trumpeting this stuff, and yet give MacDonald the cold shoulder, tells me really everything I need to know about where he's coming from.**

    ** Tay-Sachs has never been shown to boost IQs in heterozygotes, and it's common among the Irish. I've not researched torsion dystonia extensively, but, really, this one disease boosts IQ 10 points? Albinos and children with myopia are also remarked (and in the latter case, demonstrated) to have higher intelligence. Could this be because they sit inside and read all day? Could the Jewish Schul culture cause both Myopia and high verbal IQ? Myopia has gone from like 10% in more urban parts of east Asia, to over 70% today. Maybe that has to do with behavior and not fluctuations in genetic frequencies? Evidence against a genetic Jewish IQ advantage is much stronger and requires less elaborate theories. Brain Size. See Maurice Fishberg's data, though the sample size is small. Is not a more parsimonious explanation for Jewish/Gentile IQ disparities (the the extent it exists) the culture Jews have in the diaspora have of going into the professions? Isn't culture usually a more parsimonious explanation than genetics is in closely related groups like Jews and Gentiles? (That said, I'm not claiming that you pass judgement on the etiology of Jewish/Gentile differences, except perhaps insofar is you reference Cochran)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. anon[581] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    How common would it be for leading Jewish public intellectuals like Christina Hoff Sommers and Steven Pinker to very publicly and without reservation, lend their support/endorsement *1* to a paper whose core thesis were that: Whites were over-represented relative to blacks in *any* category (billionaires, academics, Nobel prizes winner, intellectual movements) because they have higher IQs than blacks, as your paper alleges the cause of the disparity between Whites and Jews is?

    Pinker's comment
    Christina's comment.
    She called MacDonald's work "anti-semitic." Why is it anti-Semitic to say that Jews are biased and have double standards, (or ad hominem, as you accused MacDonald of engaging in)*4* but it's not anti-Gentilic to say that whites are underrepresented because they're just dumber than Jews are? Would not such an explanation for White Black disparities be widely denounced as racist?

    Also, why is it "ad hominem" for MacDonald to suggest (in a glancing and debatable way) that you're biased, and not ad hominem for you to call his work "shoddy" and suggest he's incompetent. "You're biased" well "you're incompetent." I don't see how either of these are ad hominem assuming both accusations were made in good faith. And, since MacDonald's core thesis is that Jews often engage in motivated reasoning, and, a disclosure of your heritage was not apparent in your papers, *2* (I didn't see it, is it there?), wasn't it particularly apt in this case to mention it, if only in the most ambiguous and glancing way?

    *1* In the last 60 years?

    *2* Maybe you could have disclosed your Jewish background in the 1st or 2nd portion of the paper.*3* (Though this would probably not be necessary if your name were Mordechai Cofnasowitz)

    *3* If a black academic had accused white academics of engaging in white supremacy, exclusionary nepotism, and self-serving academic bias, against blacks, and a white academic with a not-obviously white name had written a critical response, I'd think it appropriate that he note his ethnic background in his paper in an obvious way.

    *4* By the way, is it not the height of hypocrisy, for a Jew to accuse someone of ad hominem for dismissing his criticism because he's a Jew, when Gentiles get dismissed as anti-Semites all the time for offering the most modest of criticisms for Jews or Israel? Jews also occasionally get accused of being self-haters if they go *much* further, but to pretend that there's no double standard in how Jews treat from within and without would be ridiculous. This is another example of the "Jew cries out in paid as he strike you" phenonomen.

    Last paragraph’s penultimate sentence should read: “but to pretend that there’s no double standard in how Jews treat *criticism* from within and without would be ridiculous.”

    Also, I wanted to point out that data on Jewish/Gentile IQ disparities are much shoddier than data on White/Black disparities are, for which we have corroborating brain size data and the Minnesota cross-adoption twin study, both of which also bolster the argument for a genetic connection. I hope it isn’t simultaneously anti-Semitic for me to say that Jews shouldn’t be over-represented in left wing movements because they have higher IQs and simultaneously “racist” to say that whites *should be* over-represented in academia because they have higher IQs, when the evidence for the latter vastly outweighs the evidence for the former? Why does the former garner someone praise and the latter derision and ostracism?

    Evidence for higher Jewish IQ consists of mostly shoddy, non-representative and small sample size studies. The IQ data out of Israel appears to contradict it (even when you factor in the Arab and “Oriental” portions of the Jewish population of Israel, it’s hard to see how the Ashkenazis have IQs above 105, probably more like 102). Also, the Tay-Sachs-like-disease explanation is highly speculative. The fact that Jews, like Pinker, run around trumpeting this stuff, and yet give MacDonald the cold shoulder, tells me really everything I need to know about where he’s coming from.**

    ** Tay-Sachs has never been shown to boost IQs in heterozygotes, and it’s common among the Irish. I’ve not researched torsion dystonia extensively, but, really, this one disease boosts IQ 10 points? Albinos and children with myopia are also remarked (and in the latter case, demonstrated) to have higher intelligence. Could this be because they sit inside and read all day? Could the Jewish Schul culture cause both Myopia and high verbal IQ? Myopia has gone from like 10% in more urban parts of east Asia, to over 70% today. Maybe that has to do with behavior and not fluctuations in genetic frequencies? Evidence against a genetic Jewish IQ advantage is much stronger and requires less elaborate theories. Brain Size. See Maurice Fishberg’s data, though the sample size is small. Is not a more parsimonious explanation for Jewish/Gentile IQ disparities (the the extent it exists) the culture Jews have in the diaspora have of going into the professions? Isn’t culture usually a more parsimonious explanation than genetics is in closely related groups like Jews and Gentiles? (That said, I’m not claiming that you pass judgement on the etiology of Jewish/Gentile differences, except perhaps insofar is you reference Cochran)

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Clarification: Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study which was not a "twin" study, but a cross-adoption study. There are also Twin studies that corroborate IQs genetic etiology.

    Also of interest, see: For interesting discussion of possible impact on political beliefs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Svigor says:

    Holy geez, 18k words. Gonna take some time to read and process this. :)

    What springs to mind while reading this response is that Jews who are reading this exchange are probably thinking, “this is why we have to suppress free inquiry and freedom of expression among the goyim. Look at what this one goy did with the intellectual matches and lighter fluid of Evolutionary Psychology.”

    Regarding Soros

    Regarding Soros, I take him about as seriously (in the context of this conversation) as I’d take Doctors Without Borders, if the latter focused more of their efforts on the first world than they did on the third world. I.e., I would not take Doctors Without Borders’ stated aims very seriously, in that case. I would assume their stated aims and their true aims to be quite different. I certainly wouldn’t take seriously their claims of going where the need is most desperate. If Soros was really serious about fighting against particularism, closed borders, etc., he would make Israel central, not peripheral. In fact, he would ignore every other country in “the west” until he’d cracked the Israeli nut, given how they are the worst offenders and his (ostensible) sort have made no progress there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Svigor says:

    That said, I am sorry MacDonald’s work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse, but to dumbification of academia- there is not such thing as intellectual discourse anymore.

    Funny how that has accompanied the rise of the brilliant Jews in academia…

    MacDonald’s main problems is that he’s motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Jews’ problem is they got nothin, so they gotta grab for argumentum ad hominem. At bottom, it’s about their misanthropy.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    Pinker: “I didn’t read it. Here’s what’s wrong with it. Also, I’m an asshat.”

    Brilliant arguments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Svigor says:

    Kevin, if you’re looking to write another book, you have one waiting for you right here, in the comments section of the iSteve Blog. “Conservative Jews” here have, as one of their main missions, defending Jewry; making the dissident right incapable of criticism of Jews. Their Jewishness trumps their “conservatism.” This has played out over and over again for many years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    Kevin, if you’re looking to write another book, you have one waiting for you right here, in the comments section of the iSteve Blog. “Conservative Jews” here have, as one of their main missions, defending Jewry; making the dissident right incapable of criticism of Jews.
     
    Such power in the comment section of one blog!

    making the dissident right incapable of criticism of Jews
     
    What does "dissident right" mean exactly? Is there someone in particular you think wants to be Jew-critical but is afraid?

    The reality is that right-wing antisemites are viewed by normal conservative Americans are freakshow bozos and embarrassments, while the fight against mass migration and Islamification of the West has so many individual people, many of them Jews, who all by themselves have done more positive things in terms of impact than the entire "counter-semitism" gang put together. Pam Geller to take just one example, who puts herself in real physical danger and deals with endless online Jihadi/SJW harassment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Svigor says:

    Whoops, forgot the quote:

    MacDonald likes to think of himself as concerned with the fate of American whites, but in fact he and his Nazi buddies are completely rejected by the vast majority of the center and far right in the USA, who are the most profound supporters in the entire world of their Jewish brothers in both the USA and the Holy Land.

    “I, and the rest of the Jewish Internet Defense Force, who work tirelessly to defend The Tribe and steer the dissident right toward Jewish interests, are living proof that the dissident right are nobodies.”

    A self-defeating argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    so they gotta grab for argumentum ad hominem
     
    I am simply performing the same examination of the motivation MacDonald has for his ideology that he purports to perform on, I suppose, me.

    KMac: You believe X because of group evolutionary strategy of societal destruction.

    Lot: You believe X because of personal failures.

    Could you explain why one is ad hominem and the other isn't?

    “I, and the rest of the Jewish Internet Defense Force, who work tirelessly to defend The Tribe and steer the dissident right toward Jewish interests, are living proof that the dissident right are nobodies.”
     

    I have been following Steve Sailer's blog and writing since about 2001. When he moved here, I started trolling the various anti-Semites Unz promotes when I had some free time.

    I have posted specific facts and reasons why rightist anti-semitism in the USA is utterly harmless and ineffective, such as polls showing the right is extremely and increasingly philosemitic. You have never attempted to refute this, nor could you.

    If I cared to combat anti-semitism (I don't, rather I just like being right on the Internet, same as you), I would not be here, but on high traffic left-wing wing blogs, or doing op-eds. Or even more effectively, working my day job and using those earnings to fund college Hasbaras.

    In fact, you quite well know I am right, and that MacDonald and neonazis are paleoconservatives' own embarrassment, akin to the New Black Panthers, Westboro Bapstist, the half-dozen Maoists who sometimes show up at left wing events, etc.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. anon[351] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    Last paragraph's penultimate sentence should read: "but to pretend that there’s no double standard in how Jews treat *criticism* from within and without would be ridiculous."

    Also, I wanted to point out that data on Jewish/Gentile IQ disparities are much shoddier than data on White/Black disparities are, for which we have corroborating brain size data and the Minnesota cross-adoption twin study, both of which also bolster the argument for a genetic connection. I hope it isn't simultaneously anti-Semitic for me to say that Jews shouldn't be over-represented in left wing movements because they have higher IQs and simultaneously "racist" to say that whites *should be* over-represented in academia because they have higher IQs, when the evidence for the latter vastly outweighs the evidence for the former? Why does the former garner someone praise and the latter derision and ostracism?

    Evidence for higher Jewish IQ consists of mostly shoddy, non-representative and small sample size studies. The IQ data out of Israel appears to contradict it (even when you factor in the Arab and "Oriental" portions of the Jewish population of Israel, it's hard to see how the Ashkenazis have IQs above 105, probably more like 102). Also, the Tay-Sachs-like-disease explanation is highly speculative. The fact that Jews, like Pinker, run around trumpeting this stuff, and yet give MacDonald the cold shoulder, tells me really everything I need to know about where he's coming from.**

    ** Tay-Sachs has never been shown to boost IQs in heterozygotes, and it's common among the Irish. I've not researched torsion dystonia extensively, but, really, this one disease boosts IQ 10 points? Albinos and children with myopia are also remarked (and in the latter case, demonstrated) to have higher intelligence. Could this be because they sit inside and read all day? Could the Jewish Schul culture cause both Myopia and high verbal IQ? Myopia has gone from like 10% in more urban parts of east Asia, to over 70% today. Maybe that has to do with behavior and not fluctuations in genetic frequencies? Evidence against a genetic Jewish IQ advantage is much stronger and requires less elaborate theories. Brain Size. See Maurice Fishberg's data, though the sample size is small. Is not a more parsimonious explanation for Jewish/Gentile IQ disparities (the the extent it exists) the culture Jews have in the diaspora have of going into the professions? Isn't culture usually a more parsimonious explanation than genetics is in closely related groups like Jews and Gentiles? (That said, I'm not claiming that you pass judgement on the etiology of Jewish/Gentile differences, except perhaps insofar is you reference Cochran)

    Clarification: Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study which was not a “twin” study, but a cross-adoption study. There are also Twin studies that corroborate IQs genetic etiology.

    Also of interest, see: For interesting discussion of possible impact on political beliefs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Svigor says:

    Thank you for your work, Kevin. I’m sorry that you have had to pay the price for Jews’ inability to live up to proper academic standards.

    In other words, I began to see myself as having a dog in this fight.

    It’s astounding how hard it can be to get Whites to see things this way.

    Much of Cofnas’s critique depends on the claim that I conceive of the Jewish community as monolithic. As a result, he repeatedly brings up examples of Jews who dissent from various intellectual and political views that are common among Jews or those participating in the Jewish movements I discuss (e.g., Jewish critics of Israel, Jewish critics of the left). On the contrary and as will be apparent below, I see the Jewish community as having important diversity of viewpoint. However, the purpose of my book is to study movements that have been influential and to determine the Jewish role in these movements. This is entirely compatible with dissent by some Jews.

    Personally, I’ve never found a need to get too far into the Group Evolutionary Theory aspects of your work. Instead I prefer to cite examples of Jewish behavior and influence, note the patterns, and let people draw their own conclusions. People seem to like it when you leave the equation open-ended: 2 + 2 = ? They seem to want to do a bit of the math.

    That said, the fact that Jews always use this argument (“Jews aren’t monolithic”) implies that they seem to think it’s effective. If they’re right, then a few dissenters would seem a plausible element in an ethnic strategy.

    My usual analogy is a hostile Indian tribe. If a tribe sends 90% of its braves to ambush and murder white homesteaders, but 10% of the braves stay home to defend the women and children and make a few noises, the tribe can make this same “dissent by some braves” sort of argument, should things go badly and the tribe face judgment. This needn’t even be a conscious strategy; some or all of the braves staying at home could genuinely prefer not to go raiding, or even conscientiously object. The key part is that the whites find the “10% of braves stayed home” argument persuasive somehow; if they do, then there’s an added incentive for them to stay home.

    2. Cofnas proposes a “default hypothesis” of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century liberal movements, namely: Because of Jewish intelligence and geography—particularly intelligence—Jews are likely to be overrepresented in any intellectual movement or activity that is not overtly anti-Semitic.”

    LOL, you seem to be stating Cofnas’ ideas more cogently than Cofnas, or indeed most Jews do. They don’t seem to like putting things that simply, instead characterizing “anti-semitism” as stupid or otherwise bad, and basing Jewish opposition on that.

    The trouble with the ensuing conversation is that Jews eventually have to admit that Whites having for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel is “anti-semitic.” Jews oppose reciprocity.

    I agree that in general and for obvious reasons, Jews won’t be attracted to theories that cast Jews in a bad light

    Jews have the option of setting up their own alternatives to White Nationalism that get the job done without “anti-semitism.” They choose not to do so because White Nationalism involves reciprocity; Whites having for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel. This isn’t “anti-semitic,” it’s just square trade. Jews are hostile to this, (a facet of the main) principle of White Nationalism not because it is “anti-semitic,” but because it isn’t in Jewish interests.

    Exposing Jewish behavior is a winning strategy for pro-Whites. It leverages philo-Semitism toward White Zionism. “If the Jews do it, so can we!”

    Also, as Cofnas notes, every non-anti-semitic intellectual movement in the West is heavily Jewish, from Communism to Austrian school economics. Not to mention things like chess, computer programming, and theoretical physics that have little to nothing to do with politics.

    Again, Jews could offer philo-Semitic alternatives to White Nationalism. They don’t because reciprocity is not in Jewish interests. “Israel for me, multiculturalism for thee.”

    You also left out the big issue: the specific scientific claim that Jewish intellectuals are motivated by genes honed in “group evolution.”

    They are. Whether Jews got their genetic predisposition toward ethnocentrism entirely from their West Asian background, or whether they added to it in the European diaspora, is an open question, though.

    Actually they can, but are not needed here, nor are they right as a matter of principle. But if you want to harm free speech and see it restricted, abusing your rights in obnoxious ways is the best way to do so.

    “The more you tighten your grip, Jews, the more goys will slip through your fingers.”

    Crackdowns will not prove effective. They will drive people further into the dissident right.

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.

    If you’re worried about which group causes the most harm to the right, the answer is obvious: Jews.

    Self-awareness is not your strong suit. All the IQ in the world cannot help you with that.

    Jewish culture is a lot like a legal defense strategy; oriented toward exoneration, regardless of guilt or innocence. Criminal defense lawyers are stereotyped as saying “if you’re guilty, I don’t wanna know.” Jews are the same way.

    Once a crime family has gotten away with too many crimes, it assumes an air of invincibility, and its downfall becomes inevitable.

    This is what has happened to Jews time and time again. Jews are the source of “antisemitism,” and until they get that through their thick kopfs, they’re going to continue to have the same problem.

    “Jews won’t replace us”

    Is there any evidence that this was the chant? Why we’re supposed to let Jews replace us, when resisting anyone else replacing us would be hunky-dorey, apparently, is one thing. But I’ve never seen it shown that “Jews won’t replace us” was the chant. I’m not going to trust (((Big Media))) and the JIDF on the subject, that’s for sure. Is there an admission from alt-righters that this was in fact the chant?

    Not quite. I have keen respect for KMD’s intelligence and academic procedure. I have none for the noisy Nazizoid followers. I only wish KMD cared to turn his analytical gifts on his followers and separated their sound beliefs from their psychotic ones. But he doesn’t, and that tells me something.

    That he’s mirroring the Jewish Strategy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.

    If you’re worried about which group causes the most harm to the right, the answer is obvious: Jews.
     
    I notice you have responded to this same quote three separate times without explicitly disagreeing with it or saying why.

    Sure, left wing Jews are very effective against the right, just as right-wing Jews are very effective against the left. Any of you JQ types do 1/10 the good work of Ed Blum, Stephen Miller, or Rebekah Mercer?

    The difference is that MacDonald purports to be on the nationalist right, but in fact is a puppet and partner of the left in delegitimizing the nationalist right.

    Tell you what, my theory that your task is hopeless and tactics grossly countereffective I will admit may be wrong if Paul Nehlan, who is such a MacDonaldist he has hired MacDonald to his campaign, is elected or at least comes close to doing so.

    If he falls flat on his face, will you consider making a similar concession?

    It a way Nehlan is going to be an exciting test of "countersemitism." So many of you all who run for office are obvious loser wackadoodles, it isn't fair to draw conclusions from their failures. But Nehlan is a perfectly normal, sane, and plausible US Congressman. His district is extremely white, conservative, and non-Jewish. He has enough personal wealth to fund at least a minimal campaign, and he has already run once and knows the drill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Svigor says:

    Not quite. I have keen respect for KMD’s intelligence and academic procedure. I have none for the noisy Nazizoid followers. I only wish KMD cared to turn his analytical gifts on his followers and separated their sound beliefs from their psychotic ones. But he doesn’t, and that tells me something.

    Jews should probably read up on the Socratic Method. Where has all the Jewish criticism of Jews been? All that Jewish criticism of Whites is lonely, needs company.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Svigor says:

    MacDonald likes to think of himself as concerned with the fate of American whites, but in fact he and his Nazi buddies are completely rejected by the vast majority of the center and far right in the USA, who are the most profound supporters in the entire world of their Jewish brothers in both the USA and the Holy Land.

    Diaspora Jews (overwhelmingly “leftist”) are the most profound supporters of diaspora and Israeli Jewry. Obviously. White support is a mile wide and an inch deep; it’ll stop when the money does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Max Denken says: • Website
    @edward smith
    'Jews quite offended by KMD’s writings, like Larry Auster and others whose books and contributions are featured at VDare.com, AmRen, C.I.S. etc have been at it for all those 20 years or more'

    and thier reasoned detailed scholarly rebutals (of CoC) are where? Ive looked. As for Auster it is pretty clear from his writing where his true allegiences lie and I regard him as just another gatekeeper. Thanks for mention Amren whose founder considers Jews white and so to begin with does not see a conflict of interest between Jews and whites regarding immigration. you have a keen respect for his 'intelligence and academic procedure' and yet you write ‘I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    “By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances'

    I mean do you realise that Kevin Mcdobald is on record as saying that anyone with an IQ less than 120 shouldn't publicly discuss the Jewish question? That he has stated that he is 'horrified' by the daily stormer. Your fake regard for his intelligence and academic procedure aside, trying to cast a retired academic who has actually given up on the study of Jews and moved onto Europeans, as some kind of Nazi leader is particularly insidious. But seriously why am I arguing with a troll concerned or not.

    You are foaming at the mouth as you people usually do. I have no time for this level of discourse. Until you and yours sober up, you have forfeited the legitimacy of the JQ issues you care about, some of which are valid, important and worthy of a wide public debate. You do not serve your cause well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    That is so typical of you, Max. When you find a person's comment unanswerable, you accuse him of foaming at the mouth. Now you get to stomp away in a huff, trailing your little blankie and sucking madly at your little binkie.

    That infantile tactic is the only one you have once your pretense of erudition is exposed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @36 ulster
    Good comments concerning Mr. MacDonald's essay. "Edward Smith's" criticisms of you and the late, patriotic Lawrence Auster are great examples of how one can be tyrannized by small differences--or by the purity of one's convictions, as the case may be. By the way, I very much appreciated your recent essay on the recent tensions between the Polish and Israeli governments, and of the complexity of the relationship between Poland's Jews and Catholics.

    Thank you. I didn’t like Auster’s personality, but so what? He was the American Socrates; opened more American eyes in the special, pithy way of his than anyone else I can think of. Of course, written off by the Streicher-Yockey-Weber-Linder-MacDonald-Sunic crowd because of his tainted DNA.

    Among many others, I’ve published a total of 5 essays with some comments about Jews, always negative but carefully and judiciously so. In each case I disclosed, to be fair, that I am part Jewish and that my parents were victims of the Holocausts (pl). You have no idea what stream of insult and obloquy outpoured in the comments section of each of those, usually of the sort that I am a joojoojoo doing PR work for the joos and my jooing won’t joo the white people. These keepers of the purity of the race are such morons that they are several levels below Adolf himself. As as a mischlinge and a born Catholic, I’d qualify enough as a German to be drafted to the 3rd Reich Wehrmacht, but for these people my arguments are tainted because I am a joo. I must say, my respect for his intellect notwithstanding, that Dr. MacDonald has resorted to this kind of blanket dismissal of blood-tainted critics in probably more than Pinker, Auster, and one other case I know of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "my parents were victims of the Holocausts"

    Really? Then show us the proof.

    This should be good.

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Lot says:
    @Svigor
    Whoops, forgot the quote:

    MacDonald likes to think of himself as concerned with the fate of American whites, but in fact he and his Nazi buddies are completely rejected by the vast majority of the center and far right in the USA, who are the most profound supporters in the entire world of their Jewish brothers in both the USA and the Holy Land.
     
    "I, and the rest of the Jewish Internet Defense Force, who work tirelessly to defend The Tribe and steer the dissident right toward Jewish interests, are living proof that the dissident right are nobodies."

    A self-defeating argument.

    so they gotta grab for argumentum ad hominem

    I am simply performing the same examination of the motivation MacDonald has for his ideology that he purports to perform on, I suppose, me.

    KMac: You believe X because of group evolutionary strategy of societal destruction.

    Lot: You believe X because of personal failures.

    Could you explain why one is ad hominem and the other isn’t?

    “I, and the rest of the Jewish Internet Defense Force, who work tirelessly to defend The Tribe and steer the dissident right toward Jewish interests, are living proof that the dissident right are nobodies.”

    I have been following Steve Sailer’s blog and writing since about 2001. When he moved here, I started trolling the various anti-Semites Unz promotes when I had some free time.

    I have posted specific facts and reasons why rightist anti-semitism in the USA is utterly harmless and ineffective, such as polls showing the right is extremely and increasingly philosemitic. You have never attempted to refute this, nor could you.

    If I cared to combat anti-semitism (I don’t, rather I just like being right on the Internet, same as you), I would not be here, but on high traffic left-wing wing blogs, or doing op-eds. Or even more effectively, working my day job and using those earnings to fund college Hasbaras.

    In fact, you quite well know I am right, and that MacDonald and neonazis are paleoconservatives’ own embarrassment, akin to the New Black Panthers, Westboro Bapstist, the half-dozen Maoists who sometimes show up at left wing events, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    polls showing the right is extremely and increasingly philosemitic
     
    You left out a few key words. The above should read:

    polls showing the phony, controlled opposition right is extremely and increasingly philosemitic
     
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    I have been following Steve Sailer’s blog and writing since about 2001.
     
    And each year of reading iSteve resulted in an average drop of 3 IQ points, leading to your current state of abject intellectual squalor.
    , @ben tillman

    KMac: You believe X because of group evolutionary strategy of societal destruction.

    Lot: You believe X because of personal failures.

    Could you explain why one is ad hominem and the other isn’t?
     
    Could you learn what ad hominem is? Neither of those things is ad hominem.

    Instead, we have Lot accusing KMac of saying something nowhere close to anything he has ever said, followed by Lot saying something else completely asinine. Great job, pal!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Lot says:
    @Svigor
    Thank you for your work, Kevin. I'm sorry that you have had to pay the price for Jews' inability to live up to proper academic standards.

    In other words, I began to see myself as having a dog in this fight.
     
    It's astounding how hard it can be to get Whites to see things this way.

    Much of Cofnas’s critique depends on the claim that I conceive of the Jewish community as monolithic. As a result, he repeatedly brings up examples of Jews who dissent from various intellectual and political views that are common among Jews or those participating in the Jewish movements I discuss (e.g., Jewish critics of Israel, Jewish critics of the left). On the contrary and as will be apparent below, I see the Jewish community as having important diversity of viewpoint. However, the purpose of my book is to study movements that have been influential and to determine the Jewish role in these movements. This is entirely compatible with dissent by some Jews.
     
    Personally, I've never found a need to get too far into the Group Evolutionary Theory aspects of your work. Instead I prefer to cite examples of Jewish behavior and influence, note the patterns, and let people draw their own conclusions. People seem to like it when you leave the equation open-ended: 2 + 2 = ? They seem to want to do a bit of the math.

    That said, the fact that Jews always use this argument ("Jews aren't monolithic") implies that they seem to think it's effective. If they're right, then a few dissenters would seem a plausible element in an ethnic strategy.

    My usual analogy is a hostile Indian tribe. If a tribe sends 90% of its braves to ambush and murder white homesteaders, but 10% of the braves stay home to defend the women and children and make a few noises, the tribe can make this same "dissent by some braves" sort of argument, should things go badly and the tribe face judgment. This needn't even be a conscious strategy; some or all of the braves staying at home could genuinely prefer not to go raiding, or even conscientiously object. The key part is that the whites find the "10% of braves stayed home" argument persuasive somehow; if they do, then there's an added incentive for them to stay home.

    2. Cofnas proposes a “default hypothesis” of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century liberal movements, namely: Because of Jewish intelligence and geography—particularly intelligence—Jews are likely to be overrepresented in any intellectual movement or activity that is not overtly anti-Semitic.”
     
    LOL, you seem to be stating Cofnas' ideas more cogently than Cofnas, or indeed most Jews do. They don't seem to like putting things that simply, instead characterizing "anti-semitism" as stupid or otherwise bad, and basing Jewish opposition on that.

    The trouble with the ensuing conversation is that Jews eventually have to admit that Whites having for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel is "anti-semitic." Jews oppose reciprocity.

    I agree that in general and for obvious reasons, Jews won’t be attracted to theories that cast Jews in a bad light
     
    Jews have the option of setting up their own alternatives to White Nationalism that get the job done without "anti-semitism." They choose not to do so because White Nationalism involves reciprocity; Whites having for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel. This isn't "anti-semitic," it's just square trade. Jews are hostile to this, (a facet of the main) principle of White Nationalism not because it is "anti-semitic," but because it isn't in Jewish interests.

    Exposing Jewish behavior is a winning strategy for pro-Whites. It leverages philo-Semitism toward White Zionism. "If the Jews do it, so can we!"

    Also, as Cofnas notes, every non-anti-semitic intellectual movement in the West is heavily Jewish, from Communism to Austrian school economics. Not to mention things like chess, computer programming, and theoretical physics that have little to nothing to do with politics.
     
    Again, Jews could offer philo-Semitic alternatives to White Nationalism. They don't because reciprocity is not in Jewish interests. "Israel for me, multiculturalism for thee."

    You also left out the big issue: the specific scientific claim that Jewish intellectuals are motivated by genes honed in “group evolution.”
     
    They are. Whether Jews got their genetic predisposition toward ethnocentrism entirely from their West Asian background, or whether they added to it in the European diaspora, is an open question, though.

    Actually they can, but are not needed here, nor are they right as a matter of principle. But if you want to harm free speech and see it restricted, abusing your rights in obnoxious ways is the best way to do so.
     
    "The more you tighten your grip, Jews, the more goys will slip through your fingers."

    Crackdowns will not prove effective. They will drive people further into the dissident right.

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.
     
    If you're worried about which group causes the most harm to the right, the answer is obvious: Jews.

    Self-awareness is not your strong suit. All the IQ in the world cannot help you with that.
     
    Jewish culture is a lot like a legal defense strategy; oriented toward exoneration, regardless of guilt or innocence. Criminal defense lawyers are stereotyped as saying "if you're guilty, I don't wanna know." Jews are the same way.

    Once a crime family has gotten away with too many crimes, it assumes an air of invincibility, and its downfall becomes inevitable.

    This is what has happened to Jews time and time again. Jews are the source of "antisemitism," and until they get that through their thick kopfs, they're going to continue to have the same problem.

    “Jews won’t replace us”
     
    Is there any evidence that this was the chant? Why we're supposed to let Jews replace us, when resisting anyone else replacing us would be hunky-dorey, apparently, is one thing. But I've never seen it shown that "Jews won’t replace us" was the chant. I'm not going to trust (((Big Media))) and the JIDF on the subject, that's for sure. Is there an admission from alt-righters that this was in fact the chant?

    Not quite. I have keen respect for KMD’s intelligence and academic procedure. I have none for the noisy Nazizoid followers. I only wish KMD cared to turn his analytical gifts on his followers and separated their sound beliefs from their psychotic ones. But he doesn’t, and that tells me something.
     
    That he's mirroring the Jewish Strategy?

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.

    If you’re worried about which group causes the most harm to the right, the answer is obvious: Jews.

    I notice you have responded to this same quote three separate times without explicitly disagreeing with it or saying why.

    Sure, left wing Jews are very effective against the right, just as right-wing Jews are very effective against the left. Any of you JQ types do 1/10 the good work of Ed Blum, Stephen Miller, or Rebekah Mercer?

    The difference is that MacDonald purports to be on the nationalist right, but in fact is a puppet and partner of the left in delegitimizing the nationalist right.

    Tell you what, my theory that your task is hopeless and tactics grossly countereffective I will admit may be wrong if Paul Nehlan, who is such a MacDonaldist he has hired MacDonald to his campaign, is elected or at least comes close to doing so.

    If he falls flat on his face, will you consider making a similar concession?

    It a way Nehlan is going to be an exciting test of “countersemitism.” So many of you all who run for office are obvious loser wackadoodles, it isn’t fair to draw conclusions from their failures. But Nehlan is a perfectly normal, sane, and plausible US Congressman. His district is extremely white, conservative, and non-Jewish. He has enough personal wealth to fund at least a minimal campaign, and he has already run once and knows the drill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    Stephen Miller's primary contribution to American history was to successfully sell Donald Trump to the American nationalist right.

    Now that Donald Trump has shown himself to be a fraud who consistently implements the exact opposite of everything he promised during the campaign, it can be accurately said that Stephen Miller's political career has been a catastrophe for America.

    Miller did just enough good as a student activist and as aide to Jeff Sessions to gain enough credibility to help elect Trump.

    But it is now clear that the most important lesson of the entire Donald Trump episode was that Kevin MacDonald and the rest of the antisemitic right were not antisemitic enough.

    If they were 100% convinced of correctness of their own theories about Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism, they never would've trusted Jared Kushner's father-in-law.

    The fact that they unanimously and strenuously supported Trump's candidacy shows that they were not 100% convinced of their own theories.

    Indeed, they wanted their theory to be proven wrong.

    They wanted a man like Trump, utterly immersed in Jewish family, friends and business associates, to be the one who freed America from the "invade the world, invite the world" paradigm.

    Anyone 100% convinced that most members of the Jewish elite believe "Is it good for the Jews?" is the only valid moral code, would have been able to precisely predict the actual course of events in the Trump administration:

    Bannon and Sessions viciously stabbed in the back; military action against enemies designated by Israel (Russia, Syria, Yemen); massive tax cuts for Mr. Adelson; no meaningful new restrictions on legal or illegal immigration; full support for Obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty for illegal aliens (DACA); the 2nd amendment extremely undermined; and Doug Jones, not Mo Brooks, filling Sessions' old senate seat.
    , @Anonymous

    Sure, left wing Jews are very effective against the right, just as right-wing Jews are very effective against the left. Any of you JQ types do 1/10 the good work of Ed Blum, Stephen Miller, or Rebekah Mercer?
     
    Mercer isn't Jewish. The recent success of the right and Trump's election is largely due to young right wingers on social media, who generally are gentiles that range from being indifferent to Jews to being fervent anti-Semites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Lot
    MacDonald likes to think of himself as concerned with the fate of American whites, but in fact he and his Nazi buddies are completely rejected by the vast majority of the center and far right in the USA, who are the most profound supporters in the entire world of their Jewish brothers in both the USA and the Holy Land.

    The actual practical consequence of MacDonald and his fellow travelers is that they allow the globalist media to falsely portray American immigration patriots as anti-Semites. They are a millstone around our necks, providing motivation and money to our enemies and embarrassing our supporters with their antics.

    As evidence of this, have Richard Spencer, David Duke, etc EVER got as much media attention as in late 2016? It was one MSM profile interview after another. They helpfully played the exact role the media wanted for them. Spencer even got a Hitler Youth haircut and lied about knowing Stephen Miller to help smear Trump and sideline Miller within the administration. Then he did his absurd lugenpresse and "Hail Trump Hail Victory" event to feed the media's early attempt to derail Trump after he won.

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media's pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.

    As consolation, we are fortunate the left the same problem, but worse. We really just have the Nazis and the Westboro type groups to embarrass us, who are tiny in number. The number of media-whoring left wing groups who embarrass the Democrats and drive away their voters is a lot more numerous, from a million idiot professors like Ward Churchill to the New Black Panthers to myriad angry trannies to the Burqa Brigade.

    Spencer even got a Hitler Youth haircut

    Well, of course. His Deep State handlers told him to.

    At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservative

    They’re part of the show too, of course. You need to figure out what is real and what is synthetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    "His Deep State handlers told him to."

    Something about you autism spectrum computer programmers makes you unaware of how normal people don't normally need to be told what to do, leading you to create conspiracy theories to explain behavior by like minded individuals.

    Nobody in the "deep state" told Spencer to become a Nazi clown to damage Trump. He simply saw that the MSM needed a new Nazi clown since Duke was getting old and lived in Switzerland, and he stepped forward to volunteer.

    I bet you would find very few conspiracy theorists have a successful history with team sports, sales, and other areas requiring a lot of non-verbal communication. A Deep State barking out orders creates the sense of order over human behavior your nuerotype can't understand.

    You would be more successful at reaching your goals if you would take the time to acknowledge your cognitive biases and limitations and then tried to work around them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Lot

    so they gotta grab for argumentum ad hominem
     
    I am simply performing the same examination of the motivation MacDonald has for his ideology that he purports to perform on, I suppose, me.

    KMac: You believe X because of group evolutionary strategy of societal destruction.

    Lot: You believe X because of personal failures.

    Could you explain why one is ad hominem and the other isn't?

    “I, and the rest of the Jewish Internet Defense Force, who work tirelessly to defend The Tribe and steer the dissident right toward Jewish interests, are living proof that the dissident right are nobodies.”
     

    I have been following Steve Sailer's blog and writing since about 2001. When he moved here, I started trolling the various anti-Semites Unz promotes when I had some free time.

    I have posted specific facts and reasons why rightist anti-semitism in the USA is utterly harmless and ineffective, such as polls showing the right is extremely and increasingly philosemitic. You have never attempted to refute this, nor could you.

    If I cared to combat anti-semitism (I don't, rather I just like being right on the Internet, same as you), I would not be here, but on high traffic left-wing wing blogs, or doing op-eds. Or even more effectively, working my day job and using those earnings to fund college Hasbaras.

    In fact, you quite well know I am right, and that MacDonald and neonazis are paleoconservatives' own embarrassment, akin to the New Black Panthers, Westboro Bapstist, the half-dozen Maoists who sometimes show up at left wing events, etc.

    polls showing the right is extremely and increasingly philosemitic

    You left out a few key words. The above should read:

    polls showing the phony, controlled opposition right is extremely and increasingly philosemitic

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @edward smith
    'I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    “By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances, you are poisoning the whole kettle of soup. You are doing for it what the “Jews won’t replace us” crowd did for the white cause in Charlottesville. You could not be more effective if you were a Black Ops unit of ZOA or ADL– and perhaps that’s what you are. Go elsewhere, Nazi or false flag Nazi scum. It’s a free country, you can wear svastika armbands, you can hold your own demonstrations, but don’t sabotage it for the rest of us.”'

    Yup.Ok.Excellent. Just as Lot has been trying to do in another part of the comments you are keen to taint Macdonald and his work by association. What the genius wannabe gatekeepers of this comment section have forgotten to take into account however is that *Macdonald's critique has been around for 20 years*. Where were all of these concerned observers/concern trolls during the two decades Macdonald had to build up his influence, add to his trilogy, start two online journals and become a major factor in alternative politics/ culture.

    Its almost like ignoring him didnt work so now he must be anathematised for the good of the anti-immigration movement-after 20 years!

    Lol

    you guys can do better than this.

    you guys can do better than this.

    I doubt that frankly.

    Well, maybe you’re just in a generous mood…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Lot

    so they gotta grab for argumentum ad hominem
     
    I am simply performing the same examination of the motivation MacDonald has for his ideology that he purports to perform on, I suppose, me.

    KMac: You believe X because of group evolutionary strategy of societal destruction.

    Lot: You believe X because of personal failures.

    Could you explain why one is ad hominem and the other isn't?

    “I, and the rest of the Jewish Internet Defense Force, who work tirelessly to defend The Tribe and steer the dissident right toward Jewish interests, are living proof that the dissident right are nobodies.”
     

    I have been following Steve Sailer's blog and writing since about 2001. When he moved here, I started trolling the various anti-Semites Unz promotes when I had some free time.

    I have posted specific facts and reasons why rightist anti-semitism in the USA is utterly harmless and ineffective, such as polls showing the right is extremely and increasingly philosemitic. You have never attempted to refute this, nor could you.

    If I cared to combat anti-semitism (I don't, rather I just like being right on the Internet, same as you), I would not be here, but on high traffic left-wing wing blogs, or doing op-eds. Or even more effectively, working my day job and using those earnings to fund college Hasbaras.

    In fact, you quite well know I am right, and that MacDonald and neonazis are paleoconservatives' own embarrassment, akin to the New Black Panthers, Westboro Bapstist, the half-dozen Maoists who sometimes show up at left wing events, etc.

    I have been following Steve Sailer’s blog and writing since about 2001.

    And each year of reading iSteve resulted in an average drop of 3 IQ points, leading to your current state of abject intellectual squalor.

    Read More
    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Lot
    Does insulting me make you feel better about being a loser ex-pat?
    , @iffen
    But all those words! Think of the word count!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Liza
    @Bardon. About the overrepresentation of jewz as violin virtuosi. A nonjew, nonasian, ie, a white person, could play like Paganini himself, but whether we know of such a person or not depends on who owns and runs the recording companies, and who is heavily influential in the symphony orchestras and so on. And that is one reason why there appear to be an outlandish number of jews playing classical violin and other classical instruments. In any case, their playing of western music on western instruments is a serious case of cultural appropriation.

    About the overrepresentation of jewz as violin virtuosi. A nonjew, nonasian, ie, a white person, could play like Paganini himself, but whether we know of such a person or not depends on who owns and runs the recording companies, and who is heavily influential in the symphony orchestras and so on. And that is one reason why there appear to be an outlandish number of jews playing classical violin and other classical instruments.

    I don’t quite understand your argument. It seems to me that Jews (alright, persons of Jewish origin) are over-represented as violin virtuosi; this is so clear that needs not evoking some conspiracy theories.

    For instance, Jews are over-represented among art collectors & dealers, but Jewish presence among great 20th C painters is not formidable at all. I can think of only a few visual artists of Jewish origin worth noticing (Modigliani, Soutine, Chagall & perhaps 1-2 others). Also, American Jews are vastly over-represented in publishing industry, but American Jewish imaginative writers (Saul Bellow, Philip Roth,…) are not too numerous when compared with Gentile American novelists (Gaddis, Pynchon, Updike, McCarthy, DeLillo,..).

    There is no need to construct conspiracies when one group of people is more prominent in some areas (blacks in basketball; Jews in performing arts).

    As for cultural appropriation- only good stuff is worthy of being “appropriated”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liza
    Noticing that some cultural groups support their own kind out of all proportion to their actual talents is a conspiracy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Lot says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I have been following Steve Sailer’s blog and writing since about 2001.
     
    And each year of reading iSteve resulted in an average drop of 3 IQ points, leading to your current state of abject intellectual squalor.

    Does insulting me make you feel better about being a loser ex-pat?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Lot says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Spencer even got a Hitler Youth haircut
     
    Well, of course. His Deep State handlers told him to.

    At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservative
     
    They're part of the show too, of course. You need to figure out what is real and what is synthetic.

    “His Deep State handlers told him to.”

    Something about you autism spectrum computer programmers makes you unaware of how normal people don’t normally need to be told what to do, leading you to create conspiracy theories to explain behavior by like minded individuals.

    Nobody in the “deep state” told Spencer to become a Nazi clown to damage Trump. He simply saw that the MSM needed a new Nazi clown since Duke was getting old and lived in Switzerland, and he stepped forward to volunteer.

    I bet you would find very few conspiracy theorists have a successful history with team sports, sales, and other areas requiring a lot of non-verbal communication. A Deep State barking out orders creates the sense of order over human behavior your nuerotype can’t understand.

    You would be more successful at reaching your goals if you would take the time to acknowledge your cognitive biases and limitations and then tried to work around them.

    Read More
    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Nobody in the “deep state” told Spencer to become a Nazi clown to damage Trump.
     
    Well, maybe not. It's true that I cannot prove my conjecture that Spencer is "working for the show". Still, I would say that anybody who can watch the following clip and not suspect, at the very least, that this guy is a plant, that's somebody who is very unaware.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyVhXsih8sM

    There is a bit of ambiguity. After he says "Hail Trump. Hail our People. Hail Victory!" he stretches out his water glass as if it is a toast, maybe. Not a fascist salute.

    But then the camera shifts over to people in the audience unambiguously doing a fascist salute. Those people are clearly plants.

    That the whole thing is Deep State agitprop seems like a very sensible suspicion and has nothing to do with any psychiatric diagnoses you make of me. Again, anybody who does NOT at least suspect this is somebody who is extremely naive and unaware.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Lot

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.

    If you’re worried about which group causes the most harm to the right, the answer is obvious: Jews.
     
    I notice you have responded to this same quote three separate times without explicitly disagreeing with it or saying why.

    Sure, left wing Jews are very effective against the right, just as right-wing Jews are very effective against the left. Any of you JQ types do 1/10 the good work of Ed Blum, Stephen Miller, or Rebekah Mercer?

    The difference is that MacDonald purports to be on the nationalist right, but in fact is a puppet and partner of the left in delegitimizing the nationalist right.

    Tell you what, my theory that your task is hopeless and tactics grossly countereffective I will admit may be wrong if Paul Nehlan, who is such a MacDonaldist he has hired MacDonald to his campaign, is elected or at least comes close to doing so.

    If he falls flat on his face, will you consider making a similar concession?

    It a way Nehlan is going to be an exciting test of "countersemitism." So many of you all who run for office are obvious loser wackadoodles, it isn't fair to draw conclusions from their failures. But Nehlan is a perfectly normal, sane, and plausible US Congressman. His district is extremely white, conservative, and non-Jewish. He has enough personal wealth to fund at least a minimal campaign, and he has already run once and knows the drill.

    Stephen Miller’s primary contribution to American history was to successfully sell Donald Trump to the American nationalist right.

    Now that Donald Trump has shown himself to be a fraud who consistently implements the exact opposite of everything he promised during the campaign, it can be accurately said that Stephen Miller’s political career has been a catastrophe for America.

    Miller did just enough good as a student activist and as aide to Jeff Sessions to gain enough credibility to help elect Trump.

    But it is now clear that the most important lesson of the entire Donald Trump episode was that Kevin MacDonald and the rest of the antisemitic right were not antisemitic enough.

    If they were 100% convinced of correctness of their own theories about Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism, they never would’ve trusted Jared Kushner’s father-in-law.

    The fact that they unanimously and strenuously supported Trump’s candidacy shows that they were not 100% convinced of their own theories.

    Indeed, they wanted their theory to be proven wrong.

    They wanted a man like Trump, utterly immersed in Jewish family, friends and business associates, to be the one who freed America from the “invade the world, invite the world” paradigm.

    Anyone 100% convinced that most members of the Jewish elite believe “Is it good for the Jews?” is the only valid moral code, would have been able to precisely predict the actual course of events in the Trump administration:

    Bannon and Sessions viciously stabbed in the back; military action against enemies designated by Israel (Russia, Syria, Yemen); massive tax cuts for Mr. Adelson; no meaningful new restrictions on legal or illegal immigration; full support for Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty for illegal aliens (DACA); the 2nd amendment extremely undermined; and Doug Jones, not Mo Brooks, filling Sessions’ old senate seat.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @utu

    Now that Donald Trump has shown himself to be a fraud who consistently implements the exact opposite of everything he promised during the campaign
     
    Not everything. He promised to be good to Israel and bad to Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Ankh says:
    @Lot
    Despite its length, this article never even attempts to address the specific criticisms of CoC, instead consisting of mostly long-winded "clarifications."

    MacDonald's main problems is that he's motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    The suggestion that scholars "can't ignore bad ideas" is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. "Doing battle" against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

    1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?

    2. MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

    3. MacDonald's various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

    4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

    Of course I have not plowed through MacDonald's trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology. But in the marketplace of ideas, a proposal has to have enough initial credibility, and enough signs of adherence to the ground rules of scientific debate, to earn the precious currency of the attention of one's peers.
     

    Oh geez some nobody was nice enough to write a terrible critique of an obviously superior academics massive 3 book series after skimming one of the books, wow we should all be really thankful. Please. MacDonald drew this response because he can’t be ignored any longer, Peterson is being made a fool of by his own fans.

    I don’t even agree with MacDonald but thinking Cofnas is in the same weight class as him is a bad joke. Pinker is far smarter but even his response is garbage, which is often the case with Pinker when he tries to expand his reach outside his comfort zone. If Pinker (or Peterson) took CofC seriously I have no doubt he could write an interesting rebuttal, but as of now what we have is CofC and a bunch of Liberal cant as a response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    "I don’t even agree with MacDonald but thinking Cofnas is in the same weight class as him is a bad joke."

    Nope. He's a loser who just lacks the IQ to have insight on the very complex subjects he writes about.

    "Between 1970 and 1974 he embarked on a career as a jazz pianist, spending two years in Jamaica, where he taught high school."

    That's just not something really smart people from Wisconsin do with their youth.

    "In 1981 he earned a PhD in biobehavioral sciences from the University of Connecticut"

    Soft science degree from a third tier university.

    "Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected and popular boys", Developmental Psychology, 23, 705–11 (1987)"

    Soft fuzzy wuzzy type of work in his middle age of the sort normally done by females.

    "MacDonald joined the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSU-LB) in 1985"

    Cal State Long Beach is a glorified community college with gigantic remedial math and reading programs and vast majority of students being black/hispanic.

    Really, it isn't personal, Pinker and Cofnas are at Harvard and Oxford and have a lot better uses of their limited time than CSULB cranks. They don't bother with Ward Churchill either.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Liza says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    About the overrepresentation of jewz as violin virtuosi. A nonjew, nonasian, ie, a white person, could play like Paganini himself, but whether we know of such a person or not depends on who owns and runs the recording companies, and who is heavily influential in the symphony orchestras and so on. And that is one reason why there appear to be an outlandish number of jews playing classical violin and other classical instruments.
     
    I don't quite understand your argument. It seems to me that Jews (alright, persons of Jewish origin) are over-represented as violin virtuosi; this is so clear that needs not evoking some conspiracy theories.

    For instance, Jews are over-represented among art collectors & dealers, but Jewish presence among great 20th C painters is not formidable at all. I can think of only a few visual artists of Jewish origin worth noticing (Modigliani, Soutine, Chagall & perhaps 1-2 others). Also, American Jews are vastly over-represented in publishing industry, but American Jewish imaginative writers (Saul Bellow, Philip Roth,...) are not too numerous when compared with Gentile American novelists (Gaddis, Pynchon, Updike, McCarthy, DeLillo,..).

    There is no need to construct conspiracies when one group of people is more prominent in some areas (blacks in basketball; Jews in performing arts).

    As for cultural appropriation- only good stuff is worthy of being "appropriated".

    Noticing that some cultural groups support their own kind out of all proportion to their actual talents is a conspiracy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. utu says:
    @John Gruskos
    Stephen Miller's primary contribution to American history was to successfully sell Donald Trump to the American nationalist right.

    Now that Donald Trump has shown himself to be a fraud who consistently implements the exact opposite of everything he promised during the campaign, it can be accurately said that Stephen Miller's political career has been a catastrophe for America.

    Miller did just enough good as a student activist and as aide to Jeff Sessions to gain enough credibility to help elect Trump.

    But it is now clear that the most important lesson of the entire Donald Trump episode was that Kevin MacDonald and the rest of the antisemitic right were not antisemitic enough.

    If they were 100% convinced of correctness of their own theories about Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism, they never would've trusted Jared Kushner's father-in-law.

    The fact that they unanimously and strenuously supported Trump's candidacy shows that they were not 100% convinced of their own theories.

    Indeed, they wanted their theory to be proven wrong.

    They wanted a man like Trump, utterly immersed in Jewish family, friends and business associates, to be the one who freed America from the "invade the world, invite the world" paradigm.

    Anyone 100% convinced that most members of the Jewish elite believe "Is it good for the Jews?" is the only valid moral code, would have been able to precisely predict the actual course of events in the Trump administration:

    Bannon and Sessions viciously stabbed in the back; military action against enemies designated by Israel (Russia, Syria, Yemen); massive tax cuts for Mr. Adelson; no meaningful new restrictions on legal or illegal immigration; full support for Obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty for illegal aliens (DACA); the 2nd amendment extremely undermined; and Doug Jones, not Mo Brooks, filling Sessions' old senate seat.

    Now that Donald Trump has shown himself to be a fraud who consistently implements the exact opposite of everything he promised during the campaign

    Not everything. He promised to be good to Israel and bad to Iran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Dunnyveg says:

    Some well-deserved praise, and a quibble on MacDonald’s work:

    The reason there hasn’t been a real academic critique of KMD’s CofC is because he did a superb job of marshaling the facts and evidence. I was taught many of the same things in college, except these same movements were extolled as being “progress”. KMD for me is a profile in courage, and thus an inspiration. When I suffer some of the same opprobrium KMD suffered, I look to the example he has set for all of us.

    As for the quibble, being a scientist, KMD is naturally also a materialist. Among other things, materialism assumes determinism, which in this context is the absence of any kind of free will. Certainly it was genetically determined that I would never be an athlete or musician. But do our genes really determine all the small decisions we make, such as whether we’re going to have lunch at McDonald’s or Wendy’s? Did our genes directly determine what clothes we put on this morning? I doubt it, and this is what determinism would mean.

    It appears to me to be the case that what our genes do is to provide us with capacity in varying amounts. For example, some of us are good at music, math, the kind of things we’re doing here, or just about every other human endeavor; others have completely different suites of capacities. Within that capacity we have lots of latitude for making our own decisions. Again, our musical ability may determine whether are capable of playing something like Tchaikovsky’s Manfred Symphony. If genetics, God, or anything else determines these people must play this piece, that remains to be shown.

    What this means is that things like social pressures can play a role in things like Jewish predatory behavior, just as it can in the rest of us. Jews too have a lot of latitude in their actions, even if that latitude does have limits.

    Of course, as I acknowledged in my first paragraph, Jews ARE predatory toward the goyim, and we have every moral right to stop these onslaughts against ourselves, our peoples, and our countries. I think the best way to do this is to shout it to the rooftops that our countries were and remain republics, with republics being “things of their citizens”. As such, we have the same right to keep the unwanted out of our country as we do our own homes–and for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    As for the quibble, being a scientist, KMD is naturally also a materialist.
     
    And this drives him to reductionism and genetics and underplaying cultural explanations. The role of Judaism and its haggadah used to indoctrinate both religious and secular Jews is larger than what he thinks.
    , @utu

    As for the quibble, being a scientist, KMD is naturally also a materialist.
     
    And this drives him to reductionism and genetics and underplaying cultural explanations. The role of Judaism and its haggadah used to indoctrinate both religious and secular Jews is larger than what he thinks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. utu says:
    @Dunnyveg
    Some well-deserved praise, and a quibble on MacDonald's work:

    The reason there hasn't been a real academic critique of KMD's CofC is because he did a superb job of marshaling the facts and evidence. I was taught many of the same things in college, except these same movements were extolled as being "progress". KMD for me is a profile in courage, and thus an inspiration. When I suffer some of the same opprobrium KMD suffered, I look to the example he has set for all of us.

    As for the quibble, being a scientist, KMD is naturally also a materialist. Among other things, materialism assumes determinism, which in this context is the absence of any kind of free will. Certainly it was genetically determined that I would never be an athlete or musician. But do our genes really determine all the small decisions we make, such as whether we're going to have lunch at McDonald's or Wendy's? Did our genes directly determine what clothes we put on this morning? I doubt it, and this is what determinism would mean.

    It appears to me to be the case that what our genes do is to provide us with capacity in varying amounts. For example, some of us are good at music, math, the kind of things we're doing here, or just about every other human endeavor; others have completely different suites of capacities. Within that capacity we have lots of latitude for making our own decisions. Again, our musical ability may determine whether are capable of playing something like Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony. If genetics, God, or anything else determines these people must play this piece, that remains to be shown.

    What this means is that things like social pressures can play a role in things like Jewish predatory behavior, just as it can in the rest of us. Jews too have a lot of latitude in their actions, even if that latitude does have limits.

    Of course, as I acknowledged in my first paragraph, Jews ARE predatory toward the goyim, and we have every moral right to stop these onslaughts against ourselves, our peoples, and our countries. I think the best way to do this is to shout it to the rooftops that our countries were and remain republics, with republics being "things of their citizens". As such, we have the same right to keep the unwanted out of our country as we do our own homes--and for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all.

    As for the quibble, being a scientist, KMD is naturally also a materialist.

    And this drives him to reductionism and genetics and underplaying cultural explanations. The role of Judaism and its haggadah used to indoctrinate both religious and secular Jews is larger than what he thinks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. utu says:
    @Dunnyveg
    Some well-deserved praise, and a quibble on MacDonald's work:

    The reason there hasn't been a real academic critique of KMD's CofC is because he did a superb job of marshaling the facts and evidence. I was taught many of the same things in college, except these same movements were extolled as being "progress". KMD for me is a profile in courage, and thus an inspiration. When I suffer some of the same opprobrium KMD suffered, I look to the example he has set for all of us.

    As for the quibble, being a scientist, KMD is naturally also a materialist. Among other things, materialism assumes determinism, which in this context is the absence of any kind of free will. Certainly it was genetically determined that I would never be an athlete or musician. But do our genes really determine all the small decisions we make, such as whether we're going to have lunch at McDonald's or Wendy's? Did our genes directly determine what clothes we put on this morning? I doubt it, and this is what determinism would mean.

    It appears to me to be the case that what our genes do is to provide us with capacity in varying amounts. For example, some of us are good at music, math, the kind of things we're doing here, or just about every other human endeavor; others have completely different suites of capacities. Within that capacity we have lots of latitude for making our own decisions. Again, our musical ability may determine whether are capable of playing something like Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony. If genetics, God, or anything else determines these people must play this piece, that remains to be shown.

    What this means is that things like social pressures can play a role in things like Jewish predatory behavior, just as it can in the rest of us. Jews too have a lot of latitude in their actions, even if that latitude does have limits.

    Of course, as I acknowledged in my first paragraph, Jews ARE predatory toward the goyim, and we have every moral right to stop these onslaughts against ourselves, our peoples, and our countries. I think the best way to do this is to shout it to the rooftops that our countries were and remain republics, with republics being "things of their citizens". As such, we have the same right to keep the unwanted out of our country as we do our own homes--and for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all.

    As for the quibble, being a scientist, KMD is naturally also a materialist.

    And this drives him to reductionism and genetics and underplaying cultural explanations. The role of Judaism and its haggadah used to indoctrinate both religious and secular Jews is larger than what he thinks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Lot says:
    @Ankh
    Oh geez some nobody was nice enough to write a terrible critique of an obviously superior academics massive 3 book series after skimming one of the books, wow we should all be really thankful. Please. MacDonald drew this response because he can't be ignored any longer, Peterson is being made a fool of by his own fans.

    I don't even agree with MacDonald but thinking Cofnas is in the same weight class as him is a bad joke. Pinker is far smarter but even his response is garbage, which is often the case with Pinker when he tries to expand his reach outside his comfort zone. If Pinker (or Peterson) took CofC seriously I have no doubt he could write an interesting rebuttal, but as of now what we have is CofC and a bunch of Liberal cant as a response.

    “I don’t even agree with MacDonald but thinking Cofnas is in the same weight class as him is a bad joke.”

    Nope. He’s a loser who just lacks the IQ to have insight on the very complex subjects he writes about.

    “Between 1970 and 1974 he embarked on a career as a jazz pianist, spending two years in Jamaica, where he taught high school.”

    That’s just not something really smart people from Wisconsin do with their youth.

    “In 1981 he earned a PhD in biobehavioral sciences from the University of Connecticut”

    Soft science degree from a third tier university.

    “Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected and popular boys”, Developmental Psychology, 23, 705–11 (1987)”

    Soft fuzzy wuzzy type of work in his middle age of the sort normally done by females.

    “MacDonald joined the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSU-LB) in 1985″

    Cal State Long Beach is a glorified community college with gigantic remedial math and reading programs and vast majority of students being black/hispanic.

    Really, it isn’t personal, Pinker and Cofnas are at Harvard and Oxford and have a lot better uses of their limited time than CSULB cranks. They don’t bother with Ward Churchill either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Pinker is a popularizer who hasn't made any major original contributions. Whereas MacDonald’s work was pioneering in the study of religion from an evolutionary perspective, as discussed by the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson and Razib Khan in the following video. Wilson says that MacDonald’s work has stood the test of time and has been elaborated upon by himself in book “Darwin’s Cathedral”:

    https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2361?in=38:21

    W.D. Hamilton, one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of all time, also cited MacDonald's work favorably.
    , @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/TOQJoyce/status/977656675388809217
    , @Vinteuil
    Lot, with all respect (and I've got a lot of respect for you), I think this whole "failed academic" charge against KMac is not helping your case.

    I have personally known "successful" academics who are malignant carbuncles on the ass-end of Western Civilization.

    And I have personally known "failed" academics who know their stuff and do their best to pass it on to their students.

    If anything, "success" in academia today, especially in the Humanities, is mostly a contra-indicator of anything really worth achieving.
    , @CalDre
    My goodness, an exemplary blind elitist. Yes, the test of the value of someone's publications, philosophy and research is whether they are hired by Illuminati "prestigious" (conformist, controlled) universities like Yale or Harvard.

    Because, you know, the only designer of homicidal gas chambers in the US, Fred Leuchter, who designed three of them (for three state's death penalties by gas), can't possibly know anything about gas chambers, given that he does not have an official engineering degree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuchter_report#Background

    No doubt Plato was not a philosopher, as he lacked a PhD from an elitist university. Leonardo de Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Michael Faraday, Charles Darwin, James Prescott Joule, Thomas Edison, etc. all lacked a scientific degree. Isaac Newton studied philosophy in college and taught himself calculus, optics and the law of gravitation (taught himself -> invented). One could go on and on. Fortunately truth does not depend on a snobby job at an Illuminati institution that is available only to those who have, over time and testing, proven their complete fealty to the Illuminati agenda.

    , @CanSpeccy

    Nope. He’s a loser who just lacks the IQ to have insight ...
     
    Is that a loser argument or just an asshole argument?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    "I don’t even agree with MacDonald but thinking Cofnas is in the same weight class as him is a bad joke."

    Nope. He's a loser who just lacks the IQ to have insight on the very complex subjects he writes about.

    "Between 1970 and 1974 he embarked on a career as a jazz pianist, spending two years in Jamaica, where he taught high school."

    That's just not something really smart people from Wisconsin do with their youth.

    "In 1981 he earned a PhD in biobehavioral sciences from the University of Connecticut"

    Soft science degree from a third tier university.

    "Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected and popular boys", Developmental Psychology, 23, 705–11 (1987)"

    Soft fuzzy wuzzy type of work in his middle age of the sort normally done by females.

    "MacDonald joined the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSU-LB) in 1985"

    Cal State Long Beach is a glorified community college with gigantic remedial math and reading programs and vast majority of students being black/hispanic.

    Really, it isn't personal, Pinker and Cofnas are at Harvard and Oxford and have a lot better uses of their limited time than CSULB cranks. They don't bother with Ward Churchill either.

    Pinker is a popularizer who hasn’t made any major original contributions. Whereas MacDonald’s work was pioneering in the study of religion from an evolutionary perspective, as discussed by the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson and Razib Khan in the following video. Wilson says that MacDonald’s work has stood the test of time and has been elaborated upon by himself in book “Darwin’s Cathedral”:

    https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2361?in=38:21

    W.D. Hamilton, one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of all time, also cited MacDonald’s work favorably.

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Dunnyveg says:

    I think we should be careful not to overstate the case on either free will or determinism since I think it is clear both play a role. Where I’m coming from here is that rather than frontal assaults on Jewish power and influence–which only get us censored and banned–we need to be hammering away at their flanks. The alternative is being at sites like this one discussing this stuff among ourselves when we need to spread the message the way race realists have spread the message on racial differences.

    As for culture, that is almost as fixed as genetic elements, as anybody who has read Albion’s Seed should be aware. Jewish culture is not something the goyim are going to change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    Given that MacDonald et al strike me as sincere, how on earth to they live with themselves knowing all the damage they cause? At least the Westboro Baptist people, who play a similar role as the media’s pet used to smear Christian Conservatives, show signs of just knowing they are engaged in a venal scam. I think the antisemites just are just childish attention addicts, aware of the harm they are causing to actual, effective American nationalists, but unable to stop themselves.

    If you’re worried about which group causes the most harm to the right, the answer is obvious: Jews.
     
    I notice you have responded to this same quote three separate times without explicitly disagreeing with it or saying why.

    Sure, left wing Jews are very effective against the right, just as right-wing Jews are very effective against the left. Any of you JQ types do 1/10 the good work of Ed Blum, Stephen Miller, or Rebekah Mercer?

    The difference is that MacDonald purports to be on the nationalist right, but in fact is a puppet and partner of the left in delegitimizing the nationalist right.

    Tell you what, my theory that your task is hopeless and tactics grossly countereffective I will admit may be wrong if Paul Nehlan, who is such a MacDonaldist he has hired MacDonald to his campaign, is elected or at least comes close to doing so.

    If he falls flat on his face, will you consider making a similar concession?

    It a way Nehlan is going to be an exciting test of "countersemitism." So many of you all who run for office are obvious loser wackadoodles, it isn't fair to draw conclusions from their failures. But Nehlan is a perfectly normal, sane, and plausible US Congressman. His district is extremely white, conservative, and non-Jewish. He has enough personal wealth to fund at least a minimal campaign, and he has already run once and knows the drill.

    Sure, left wing Jews are very effective against the right, just as right-wing Jews are very effective against the left. Any of you JQ types do 1/10 the good work of Ed Blum, Stephen Miller, or Rebekah Mercer?

    Mercer isn’t Jewish. The recent success of the right and Trump’s election is largely due to young right wingers on social media, who generally are gentiles that range from being indifferent to Jews to being fervent anti-Semites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Mark Hunter says: • Website

    Max Denken’s “The Jews are our misfortune!” simplifies Prof. MacDonald’s work to the point of caricature. The worst of the caricature is that it confuses evil Jewish culture with the ethnicity of Jews. In fact Prof. MacDonald has written that there are, for example, many ethnic Jews doing good work on immigration.

    Ethnic Jews try to enforce Jewish culture on ethnic Jews (all cultural Jews are ethnic Jews) but some escape (not all ethnic Jews are cultural Jews).

    Denken refers to “whatever MacDonald’s intentions” and thus hints that MacDonald’s intentions might be evil.

    By using the passive voice in “that’s the conclusion that arises from his publications” Denken avoids saying who concludes, thus hinting that the falsehood is in MacDonald’s work.

    In so many words Denken says that MacDonald should allow his detractors to circumscribe his work, that he should internalize their criticism and censor himself, that he shouldn’t tell the whole truth as he sees it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    "I don’t even agree with MacDonald but thinking Cofnas is in the same weight class as him is a bad joke."

    Nope. He's a loser who just lacks the IQ to have insight on the very complex subjects he writes about.

    "Between 1970 and 1974 he embarked on a career as a jazz pianist, spending two years in Jamaica, where he taught high school."

    That's just not something really smart people from Wisconsin do with their youth.

    "In 1981 he earned a PhD in biobehavioral sciences from the University of Connecticut"

    Soft science degree from a third tier university.

    "Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected and popular boys", Developmental Psychology, 23, 705–11 (1987)"

    Soft fuzzy wuzzy type of work in his middle age of the sort normally done by females.

    "MacDonald joined the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSU-LB) in 1985"

    Cal State Long Beach is a glorified community college with gigantic remedial math and reading programs and vast majority of students being black/hispanic.

    Really, it isn't personal, Pinker and Cofnas are at Harvard and Oxford and have a lot better uses of their limited time than CSULB cranks. They don't bother with Ward Churchill either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Amasius
    You're "cherry picking," dawg. Totally uncalled for. All sorts of jews rushed to denounce her and what she said there.

    Actually no, they didn't, but that's what we're supposed to believe in Cofnas' corner of Clown World.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Vinteuil says:
    @Liza
    @Bardon. About the overrepresentation of jewz as violin virtuosi. A nonjew, nonasian, ie, a white person, could play like Paganini himself, but whether we know of such a person or not depends on who owns and runs the recording companies, and who is heavily influential in the symphony orchestras and so on. And that is one reason why there appear to be an outlandish number of jews playing classical violin and other classical instruments. In any case, their playing of western music on western instruments is a serious case of cultural appropriation.

    So who do you think lovers of the violin repertoire should have been listening to, instead of Joseph Joachim, Fritz Kreisler, Josef Szigeti, Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin, David Oistrakh, Itzhak Perlman – &c.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liza
    Lovers of the violin can listen to anyone they like, I do not say otherwise. For everyone on your list there's probably a dozen of the nonjewish variety who was never promoted and publicized to the same degree, though there are several. Also, most famous does not necessarily equal the best in any field of music.

    I have attended concerts where the concertmaster was every bit as competent as any solo star but for some reason you have never heard of them. I have attended music competitions where the losers were better than the winner.

    Read up on how difficult it was for Zino Francescatti (whose concerts I've attended a few times) to get a job as a soloist.

    Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why there are so many rich, highly successful rap "stars"? Is this "music" worthy in your eyes? Can you grasp the idea of heavy promotion?
    , @Vojkan
    Among others Zino Franceschati, Anne-Sophie Mutter, Patrice Fontanarosa (though his wife is Jewish), the pupil of the latter Nemanja Radulović. I love David Oistrakh though.
    You'll note that all the violinists you cite are famous for their interpretations of works by goyim, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, with Mendelsohn being an exception.
    Studying classical music demands resources. For violin, it demands at least an instrument that doesn't sound like a cat you're skinning and those don't come cheap. For the piano, it was even worse before Yamaha began to make cheap digital instruments that wheren't yet anywhere close to how a grand plays. Roland has recently made some good instruments, I owe one, and though still cheeper than a good upright, one still has to have good revenue to afford it. As for second hand acoustic pianos, they tend to go out of tune in the high pitch, and an out of tune piano isn't exactly the best tool for a kid to become a virtuoso. Then there's the education. A good teacher doesn't come cheap either.
    All in all, learning classical music demands much more resources than learning the axe. Nevertheless, I am grateful to Jewish interpreters for bringing to life the works of the great goyim masters of music.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Vinteuil says:
    @Lot
    "I don’t even agree with MacDonald but thinking Cofnas is in the same weight class as him is a bad joke."

    Nope. He's a loser who just lacks the IQ to have insight on the very complex subjects he writes about.

    "Between 1970 and 1974 he embarked on a career as a jazz pianist, spending two years in Jamaica, where he taught high school."

    That's just not something really smart people from Wisconsin do with their youth.

    "In 1981 he earned a PhD in biobehavioral sciences from the University of Connecticut"

    Soft science degree from a third tier university.

    "Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected and popular boys", Developmental Psychology, 23, 705–11 (1987)"

    Soft fuzzy wuzzy type of work in his middle age of the sort normally done by females.

    "MacDonald joined the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSU-LB) in 1985"

    Cal State Long Beach is a glorified community college with gigantic remedial math and reading programs and vast majority of students being black/hispanic.

    Really, it isn't personal, Pinker and Cofnas are at Harvard and Oxford and have a lot better uses of their limited time than CSULB cranks. They don't bother with Ward Churchill either.

    Lot, with all respect (and I’ve got a lot of respect for you), I think this whole “failed academic” charge against KMac is not helping your case.

    I have personally known “successful” academics who are malignant carbuncles on the ass-end of Western Civilization.

    And I have personally known “failed” academics who know their stuff and do their best to pass it on to their students.

    If anything, “success” in academia today, especially in the Humanities, is mostly a contra-indicator of anything really worth achieving.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    And I have personally known “failed” academics who know their stuff and do their best to pass it on to their students.
     
    Good teaching doesn't require a very high IQ. MacDonald's ambitions do, but he simply lacks the ability. I am not trying to convince his fans, that is futile, just calling it as I see it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. CalDre says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    I don't see much new in Kevin MacDonald's response to Confas' critique (which is, by the way, too limited & ahistorical). MacDonald has just re-iterated his old claims:

    * Jews "follow group evolutionary strategy". He didn't prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No "strategy" in such a behavior.

    * also, the author's description of "Jewish movements" is non-verifiable & actually difficult to describe. From what I know of Marxism, psychoanalysis or Leninism- these were not "Jewish" movements, neither in intellectual genesis nor with regard to their proponents.
    What about other intellectual currents, prominent in 20th & 21st C? Do these movements or cultural currents qualify as "Jewish": anarchism, free-love leftism, Expressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, German phenomenology in philosophy, cultural critique (Derrida & Foucault following Heidegger), New Left with its post-1968 ideology, multiculturalism as ideology, Jungian archetypal psychology, New Age ideologies, radical Feminism, "New Atheism", evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, various schools of economics (Austrian, Chicago,..), structuralism in humanities, ..?
    I know next to nothing on Boasian anthropology, but I do know quite a lot about Communism & various branches of psychoanalysis, and I don't see how one can show these movement are "Jewish" in origin or history? For instance, except for being Austrian Jew, what is "Jewish" in early, Freudian variant of psychoanalysis? This "school" was a product of German culture during fin de siecle & the general knowledge of psychiatry during these times. What is "Jewish" in its structure, values or general trend, in its goals, or in its map of human psyche?

    * what about areas where ethnic Jews are over-represented in 20th & 21st fields: theoretical physics, all branches of mathematics, chess masters, computer science, violin virtuosi, philanthropists in arts & curators of museums, film directors & producers, ..? Are these areas somehow driven by Jewish interests, whether conscious or not? How can we ascertain this?

    Although I admire MacDonald's work in demolition of maudlin myth the core American Jewish community has over time built about it (eternal victims & universal humanitarians), I don't see his work as dispassionate analysis that would be close to even such a non-exact "science" as evolutionary psychology claims to be. With its broad sweep of generalizations, MacDonald's work on historical traits of Judaism (as culture) is not unlike other historiosophies, similar to St. Augustine, Gioacchino da Fiore, Hegel, Marx or Spengler.

    There are insights in these works- but they are basically an imaginative construction, not more.

    That said, I am sorry MacDonald's work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse, but to dumbification of academia- there is not such thing as intellectual discourse anymore.

    * Jews “follow group evolutionary strategy”. He didn’t prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No “strategy” in such a behavior.

    The fact that Jews still exist, both religiously and more importantly, tribally, two millennium after the Diaspora (and hence ceasing to constitute the majority group) is overpowering, irrefutable proof that Jews have a group evolutionary strategy. How many groups can make this claim? And which of these is not also a strongly ethnocentric (supremacist, in modern nomenclature) group?

    The entire comment is a virtual denial of reality, presuming that there must be some constant, verbal expression of this strategy in order for there to be one. First, words are merely words, it is actions that matter, and Jewish tribal actions/identity speak for themselves. Second Jews in fact do exhibit a group evolutionary strategy: one as the “chosen” ones (with all of its implications in the various Jewish historical texts, such as the Talmud), and another as the “Is it good for the Jews” introspection. And it is displayed indirectly with Jews’ psychotic obsession with being Jewish.

    You claim also that there is no “strategy” in the behavior of a “human collective want[ing] to preserve its identity & to thrive.” Well one would imagine so, but, as Kevin MacDonald has aptly demonstrated, it is Jews that are principal instigators in the destruction not only of individual White cultures (Swedish, American, German, etc.), but of the White race as a whole. Multiculturalism, mass immigration, Hollywood Jewish “culture” and the like are all designed to destroy White identity and for Whites to fail. Hence Whites not pursuing their self interest is the actual “strategy” – the “strategy” employed by globalists, largely Jews, to destroy the White race and ethnicities. The only “pure” race to be left, when all is said and done, is the ethnically pure and ever-expanding Israel, perhaps with the global capital in Jerusalem (why does that sound familiar?). So it is a strategy Jews are employing, to leave Jews as the last united group left standing. “The people, united, will never be defeated”, and Jews’ potent ethnocentrism has kept Jews united, and strong, over the centuries. Knowing that unity and self-consciousness is a great empower of a people, Jews wanted to derive their competitors for power – mainly, Whites – of this strength.

    As to Jews wanting to dominate the world, as a tribe, the evidence for it is of course overwhelming, not just in Jewish texts (“Messiah” etc.), but in Jewish tribal actions (by this I mean actions of the organized – the “State” – portion of the tribe, every tribe has its chieftains/royalty and leaders and institutions, that’s what makes it a tribe, and so does of course the Jewish one). And why shouldn’t they? Is it “anti-Roman” to say the Romans sought a global empire? Or anti-English to say the British sought a global empire? Of course not, one would not need to refute such an utterly nonsense accusation in any other case. It is a particular habit of Jews to accuse someone of wanting to exterminate all Jews merely for pointing out that, yes, Jews act and have acted in their tribal interests (as if the very existence of the State of Israel, let alone the saga of how that came to be and how it is maintained, alone does not completely validate the proposition). A pathetic, illogical and evil ploy, but one employed continuously by Jews – acting, guess what, in the interests of the tribe/hive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    "The fact that Jews still exist, both religiously and more importantly, tribally, two millennium after the Diaspora"

    Ashkenazi are a large majority of Jews and are about 62% European as opposed to Levantine, like the Jews of 2000 years ago. And that is "pure" Ashkenazi, but a large share of self identified Jews are even less than this.
    , @Bardon Kaldian

    The fact that Jews still exist, both religiously and more importantly, tribally, two millennium after the Diaspora (and hence ceasing to constitute the majority group) is overpowering, irrefutable proof that Jews have a group evolutionary strategy. How many groups can make this claim? And which of these is not also a strongly ethnocentric (supremacist, in modern nomenclature) group?
     
    What kind of argument is this? Zoroastrians, older religionists than Jews, still exist too, in the diaspora as Parsis in India, Britain.. well after they've been almost completely eradicated from their ancestral homeland in Iran. These are religions which can last if you don't literally exterminate its adherents. The Chinese, who are ca. 3500 years old as a culture still exist, both in & out of China. So what?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. CalDre says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    I don't see much new in Kevin MacDonald's response to Confas' critique (which is, by the way, too limited & ahistorical). MacDonald has just re-iterated his old claims:

    * Jews "follow group evolutionary strategy". He didn't prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No "strategy" in such a behavior.

    * also, the author's description of "Jewish movements" is non-verifiable & actually difficult to describe. From what I know of Marxism, psychoanalysis or Leninism- these were not "Jewish" movements, neither in intellectual genesis nor with regard to their proponents.
    What about other intellectual currents, prominent in 20th & 21st C? Do these movements or cultural currents qualify as "Jewish": anarchism, free-love leftism, Expressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, German phenomenology in philosophy, cultural critique (Derrida & Foucault following Heidegger), New Left with its post-1968 ideology, multiculturalism as ideology, Jungian archetypal psychology, New Age ideologies, radical Feminism, "New Atheism", evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, various schools of economics (Austrian, Chicago,..), structuralism in humanities, ..?
    I know next to nothing on Boasian anthropology, but I do know quite a lot about Communism & various branches of psychoanalysis, and I don't see how one can show these movement are "Jewish" in origin or history? For instance, except for being Austrian Jew, what is "Jewish" in early, Freudian variant of psychoanalysis? This "school" was a product of German culture during fin de siecle & the general knowledge of psychiatry during these times. What is "Jewish" in its structure, values or general trend, in its goals, or in its map of human psyche?

    * what about areas where ethnic Jews are over-represented in 20th & 21st fields: theoretical physics, all branches of mathematics, chess masters, computer science, violin virtuosi, philanthropists in arts & curators of museums, film directors & producers, ..? Are these areas somehow driven by Jewish interests, whether conscious or not? How can we ascertain this?

    Although I admire MacDonald's work in demolition of maudlin myth the core American Jewish community has over time built about it (eternal victims & universal humanitarians), I don't see his work as dispassionate analysis that would be close to even such a non-exact "science" as evolutionary psychology claims to be. With its broad sweep of generalizations, MacDonald's work on historical traits of Judaism (as culture) is not unlike other historiosophies, similar to St. Augustine, Gioacchino da Fiore, Hegel, Marx or Spengler.

    There are insights in these works- but they are basically an imaginative construction, not more.

    That said, I am sorry MacDonald's work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse, but to dumbification of academia- there is not such thing as intellectual discourse anymore.

    For instance, except for being Austrian Jew, what is “Jewish” in early, Freudian variant of psychoanalysis?

    Except for being an Austrian Jew? You mean, except for the fact that a quite ethnocentric Jew came up with that psycho-garbage, what do Jews have to do with it? That’s a good one!

    But, I have something besides the obvious. Freud’s id, ego and superego garbage is modeled on kabbalistic traditions. Sure Freud made some changes to the mystical underpinnings, but what good rabbi doesn’t adjust his message to the times? This underpinning led Carl Jung to exclaim: “a full understanding of the Jewish origins of psychoanalysis would carry us beyond Jewish Orthodoxy into the subterranean workings of Hasidism and then into the intricacies of the Kabbalah which still remain unexplored psychologically.” This article claims, consistent with some of MacDonald’s observations, that Freud handed psycho-garbage to Jung to (deceptively attempt to) remove the Jewish connection to it.

    But no doubt that is all “anti-Semitic”. So, since only Jews have a voice on anything related to Jews, let’s hear it from the virulently anti-Semitic Dennis B. Klein, director of the Center for Holocaust Studies of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, who has authored a book entitled: Jewish Origins of the Psychoanalytic Movement, in which he:

    explores the Jewish consciousness of Freud and his followers and the impact of their Jewish self-conceptions on the early psychoanalytic movement. Using little-known sources such as the diaries and papers of Freud’s protégé Otto Rank and records of the Vienna B’nai B’rith that document Freud’s active participation in that Jewish fraternal society, Klein argues that the feeling of Jewish ethical responsibility, aimed at renewing ties with Germans and with all humanity, stimulated the work of Freud, Rank, and other analysts and constituted the driving force of the psychoanalytic movement.

    Except I would say, it wasn’t “the feeling of Jewish ethical responsibility” as much as “the feeling of Jewish ethical [and tribal] superiority” that was the driving factor of Freud’s psycho-garbage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Except for being an Austrian Jew? You mean, except for the fact that a quite ethnocentric Jew came up with that psycho-garbage, what do Jews have to do with it? That’s a good one!

    But, I have something besides the obvious. Freud’s id, ego and superego garbage is modeled on kabbalistic traditions. Sure Freud made some changes to the mystical underpinnings, but what good rabbi doesn’t adjust his message to the times? This underpinning led Carl Jung to exclaim: “a full understanding of the Jewish origins of psychoanalysis would carry us beyond Jewish Orthodoxy into the subterranean workings of Hasidism and then into the intricacies of the Kabbalah which still remain unexplored psychologically.” This article claims, consistent with some of MacDonald’s observations, that Freud handed psycho-garbage to Jung to (deceptively attempt to) remove the Jewish connection to it.
     
    This is worthless, a combination of antisemitism & Jewish ethnic projections. Do you really think that obscure & obscurantist articles amount to anything?

    Freud was clueless about Kabbalah, although one Jewish propagandist, David Bakan, tried to persuade the public that it was not so:
    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41rBG1LiI4L._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Psychoanalysis had been, before it became apparent that is was a sort of metaphysics, designed by its "founding father" as the true science of psychological functioning which will have been proven right by further discoveries in neurophysiology & brain research. Freud's goal was to become "Darwin of the mind", although his intellectual predecessors were more in the field of literature & philosophy (Sophocles, Shakespeare, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, ..) & his practice in Paris where he had been fascinated by hypnosis.

    This is real Freud, not a cartoon from conspiracy theories:

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51c6NToraTL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51tHt8uaB5L._SX347_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41uI8vLlIPL._SX333_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    and indispensable CC

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/418-zyt0JXL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. utu says:

    my critique of Cochran and Harpending is here

    Anybody can explain Cochran? He seem to be obsessed with Jewish IQ and keeps pumping up the meme how smart Jews are. Did he at least do any new original testing to confirm values of Jewish IQ or just keeps repeating the old and dubious and mutually contradictory sources?

    Who pays for his “research”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    "keeps pumping up the meme how smart Jews are"

    Sure, it is just a meme.

    "Did he at least do any new original testing to confirm values of Jewish IQ"

    You can't just decide to test people, you need a random sample. That generally requires the government to do mass testing.
    , @CanSpeccy
    Jewish IQ is not a problem.

    Heck even I'm above the mean IQ of an Askenazi Jew, whether it be 109 or 115!

    What matters is their culture, insofar as it inculcates loyalty to the Jewish nation before loyalty to the nation among whom Jews reside.

    Such a mentality inevitably leads to corporate behavior aimed at promoting Jews over non-Jews and treating non-Jews as inferior to Jews, as indeed the Jewish religion teaches and the secularized Jewish culture firmly inculcates in the minds of those that adhere to it.

    And in fact, this attitude of Jewish supremacism leads directly to genocidal policies against host nations as seen in Sweden today where a single Jewish family, the Bonniers control the media and bar criticism of their advocacy for mass replacement immigration. Thus:

    In 1993 the newspaper Expressen broke one of the great taboos of Swedish politics and published a rare opinion poll on the country's actual views. Under the headline "Throw them out" the paper revealed that 63 percent of swedish people wanted immigrants to go back to their home countries. An accompanying article by the papers's editor-in-chief Erik Mansson, noted that, "The Swedish people have a firm opinion on immigration and refugee policies. Those in power have the opposite opnion. It does not add up. It is an opinion bomb about to go off. That is why we are writing about this, starting today. Telling it just like it is. In black and white. Before the bomb goes off" As though to prove the point he was making, the only result of this opinion poll was that the owners of Expressen fired the Paper's editor-in-chief.

    The Strange Death of Europe. Douglas Murray, 2017
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Lot says:
    @Vinteuil
    Lot, with all respect (and I've got a lot of respect for you), I think this whole "failed academic" charge against KMac is not helping your case.

    I have personally known "successful" academics who are malignant carbuncles on the ass-end of Western Civilization.

    And I have personally known "failed" academics who know their stuff and do their best to pass it on to their students.

    If anything, "success" in academia today, especially in the Humanities, is mostly a contra-indicator of anything really worth achieving.

    And I have personally known “failed” academics who know their stuff and do their best to pass it on to their students.

    Good teaching doesn’t require a very high IQ. MacDonald’s ambitions do, but he simply lacks the ability. I am not trying to convince his fans, that is futile, just calling it as I see it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Please provide some support for your claim that a "very high IQ" is required to publish interesting work in MacDonald's field. Please provide a threshold IQ and demonstrate why those who fall below the threshold cannot produce interesting results. I am curious to know why only the very intelligent have access to truth regarding observable human behavior. Also provide support for your previous claim that really smart young people from Wisconsin never seek careers as jazz pianists or teach high school in Jamaica.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. CalDre says:
    @Lot
    "I don’t even agree with MacDonald but thinking Cofnas is in the same weight class as him is a bad joke."

    Nope. He's a loser who just lacks the IQ to have insight on the very complex subjects he writes about.

    "Between 1970 and 1974 he embarked on a career as a jazz pianist, spending two years in Jamaica, where he taught high school."

    That's just not something really smart people from Wisconsin do with their youth.

    "In 1981 he earned a PhD in biobehavioral sciences from the University of Connecticut"

    Soft science degree from a third tier university.

    "Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected and popular boys", Developmental Psychology, 23, 705–11 (1987)"

    Soft fuzzy wuzzy type of work in his middle age of the sort normally done by females.

    "MacDonald joined the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSU-LB) in 1985"

    Cal State Long Beach is a glorified community college with gigantic remedial math and reading programs and vast majority of students being black/hispanic.

    Really, it isn't personal, Pinker and Cofnas are at Harvard and Oxford and have a lot better uses of their limited time than CSULB cranks. They don't bother with Ward Churchill either.

    My goodness, an exemplary blind elitist. Yes, the test of the value of someone’s publications, philosophy and research is whether they are hired by Illuminati “prestigious” (conformist, controlled) universities like Yale or Harvard.

    Because, you know, the only designer of homicidal gas chambers in the US, Fred Leuchter, who designed three of them (for three state’s death penalties by gas), can’t possibly know anything about gas chambers, given that he does not have an official engineering degree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuchter_report#Background

    No doubt Plato was not a philosopher, as he lacked a PhD from an elitist university. Leonardo de Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Michael Faraday, Charles Darwin, James Prescott Joule, Thomas Edison, etc. all lacked a scientific degree. Isaac Newton studied philosophy in college and taught himself calculus, optics and the law of gravitation (taught himself -> invented). One could go on and on. Fortunately truth does not depend on a snobby job at an Illuminati institution that is available only to those who have, over time and testing, proven their complete fealty to the Illuminati agenda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Lot says:
    @utu

    my critique of Cochran and Harpending is here
     
    Anybody can explain Cochran? He seem to be obsessed with Jewish IQ and keeps pumping up the meme how smart Jews are. Did he at least do any new original testing to confirm values of Jewish IQ or just keeps repeating the old and dubious and mutually contradictory sources?

    Who pays for his "research"?

    “keeps pumping up the meme how smart Jews are”

    Sure, it is just a meme.

    “Did he at least do any new original testing to confirm values of Jewish IQ”

    You can’t just decide to test people, you need a random sample. That generally requires the government to do mass testing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Lot says:
    @CalDre

    * Jews “follow group evolutionary strategy”. He didn’t prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No “strategy” in such a behavior.
     
    The fact that Jews still exist, both religiously and more importantly, tribally, two millennium after the Diaspora (and hence ceasing to constitute the majority group) is overpowering, irrefutable proof that Jews have a group evolutionary strategy. How many groups can make this claim? And which of these is not also a strongly ethnocentric (supremacist, in modern nomenclature) group?

    The entire comment is a virtual denial of reality, presuming that there must be some constant, verbal expression of this strategy in order for there to be one. First, words are merely words, it is actions that matter, and Jewish tribal actions/identity speak for themselves. Second Jews in fact do exhibit a group evolutionary strategy: one as the "chosen" ones (with all of its implications in the various Jewish historical texts, such as the Talmud), and another as the "Is it good for the Jews" introspection. And it is displayed indirectly with Jews' psychotic obsession with being Jewish.

    You claim also that there is no "strategy" in the behavior of a "human collective want[ing] to preserve its identity & to thrive." Well one would imagine so, but, as Kevin MacDonald has aptly demonstrated, it is Jews that are principal instigators in the destruction not only of individual White cultures (Swedish, American, German, etc.), but of the White race as a whole. Multiculturalism, mass immigration, Hollywood Jewish "culture" and the like are all designed to destroy White identity and for Whites to fail. Hence Whites not pursuing their self interest is the actual "strategy" - the "strategy" employed by globalists, largely Jews, to destroy the White race and ethnicities. The only "pure" race to be left, when all is said and done, is the ethnically pure and ever-expanding Israel, perhaps with the global capital in Jerusalem (why does that sound familiar?). So it is a strategy Jews are employing, to leave Jews as the last united group left standing. "The people, united, will never be defeated", and Jews' potent ethnocentrism has kept Jews united, and strong, over the centuries. Knowing that unity and self-consciousness is a great empower of a people, Jews wanted to derive their competitors for power - mainly, Whites - of this strength.

    As to Jews wanting to dominate the world, as a tribe, the evidence for it is of course overwhelming, not just in Jewish texts ("Messiah" etc.), but in Jewish tribal actions (by this I mean actions of the organized - the "State" - portion of the tribe, every tribe has its chieftains/royalty and leaders and institutions, that's what makes it a tribe, and so does of course the Jewish one). And why shouldn't they? Is it "anti-Roman" to say the Romans sought a global empire? Or anti-English to say the British sought a global empire? Of course not, one would not need to refute such an utterly nonsense accusation in any other case. It is a particular habit of Jews to accuse someone of wanting to exterminate all Jews merely for pointing out that, yes, Jews act and have acted in their tribal interests (as if the very existence of the State of Israel, let alone the saga of how that came to be and how it is maintained, alone does not completely validate the proposition). A pathetic, illogical and evil ploy, but one employed continuously by Jews - acting, guess what, in the interests of the tribe/hive.

    “The fact that Jews still exist, both religiously and more importantly, tribally, two millennium after the Diaspora”

    Ashkenazi are a large majority of Jews and are about 62% European as opposed to Levantine, like the Jews of 2000 years ago. And that is “pure” Ashkenazi, but a large share of self identified Jews are even less than this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Agreed, and I never claimed or insinuated that there was a continuity of DNA in the Jewish tribe, only that there was a continuity in the tribe and its rulers and institutions.

    Name some other groups that maintain their identity for 2,000 years as a small minority and I will show you a group of supremacists.

    For example, how many British Americans identify as Textoverdi? You probably don't even know that tribe, it is so forgotten. As are tens of thousands of tribes that existed in the iron age and since in Europe. The only one that has managed to survive are Jews.

    Jews absolutely refuse to assimilate (by definition, as the ones who have assimilated, are no longer Jews), precisely because they sincerely believe it is a step down, that they would be mixing with inferior stock. Like a Boer may feel about mixing with a black South African. Except the Boers can be condemned for that behavior and attitude, and had to give up power in South Africa, whilst Jews must be applauded, and any critique means, obviously, you want to throw them all in an oven (and, oh my God, don't even suggest Jews give up their power! Oy vey!)..

    Another huge distinction is that Jews, particularly Ashkenazi Jews, can easily assimilate into White societies, because, as you mentioned, they are White. Heck, the Rothschilds and many of the other banking royalty in the tribe are Aryan! Just look at their paintings from the 18th Century and photos since. They are just a subgroup of Whites who are determined to dominate the rest of the Whites and use this "anti-Semitic" fraud to advance their diabolical agenda.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. CalDre says:
    @Lot
    "The fact that Jews still exist, both religiously and more importantly, tribally, two millennium after the Diaspora"

    Ashkenazi are a large majority of Jews and are about 62% European as opposed to Levantine, like the Jews of 2000 years ago. And that is "pure" Ashkenazi, but a large share of self identified Jews are even less than this.

    Agreed, and I never claimed or insinuated that there was a continuity of DNA in the Jewish tribe, only that there was a continuity in the tribe and its rulers and institutions.

    Name some other groups that maintain their identity for 2,000 years as a small minority and I will show you a group of supremacists.

    For example, how many British Americans identify as Textoverdi? You probably don’t even know that tribe, it is so forgotten. As are tens of thousands of tribes that existed in the iron age and since in Europe. The only one that has managed to survive are Jews.

    Jews absolutely refuse to assimilate (by definition, as the ones who have assimilated, are no longer Jews), precisely because they sincerely believe it is a step down, that they would be mixing with inferior stock. Like a Boer may feel about mixing with a black South African. Except the Boers can be condemned for that behavior and attitude, and had to give up power in South Africa, whilst Jews must be applauded, and any critique means, obviously, you want to throw them all in an oven (and, oh my God, don’t even suggest Jews give up their power! Oy vey!)..

    Another huge distinction is that Jews, particularly Ashkenazi Jews, can easily assimilate into White societies, because, as you mentioned, they are White. Heck, the Rothschilds and many of the other banking royalty in the tribe are Aryan! Just look at their paintings from the 18th Century and photos since. They are just a subgroup of Whites who are determined to dominate the rest of the Whites and use this “anti-Semitic” fraud to advance their diabolical agenda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Lot

    And I have personally known “failed” academics who know their stuff and do their best to pass it on to their students.
     
    Good teaching doesn't require a very high IQ. MacDonald's ambitions do, but he simply lacks the ability. I am not trying to convince his fans, that is futile, just calling it as I see it.

    Please provide some support for your claim that a “very high IQ” is required to publish interesting work in MacDonald’s field. Please provide a threshold IQ and demonstrate why those who fall below the threshold cannot produce interesting results. I am curious to know why only the very intelligent have access to truth regarding observable human behavior. Also provide support for your previous claim that really smart young people from Wisconsin never seek careers as jazz pianists or teach high school in Jamaica.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    provide support for your previous claim that really smart young people from Wisconsin never seek careers as jazz pianists or teach high school in Jamaica.
     
    There's not much point asking this person to back up what he's saying. He won't provide any answer, at least nothing coherent.

    Basically, it's just a bunch of arrogant Jewboy bullshit.
    , @Amasius
    The man with the world's highest IQ is a bar bouncer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7BhXlMm_8

    I don't think he's jewish, either! Must be faking it!

    The man with the second highest IQ, possibly the highest, writes for television and stayed in high school for ten years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=lcDfoo76dKY

    But he is jewish, so we know his IQ score is the real deal at least.

    This goy retard didn't even go to college:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen

    Lancaster, PA's Brad Rutter went to.... Johns Hopkins PFFFFFFFFT and dropped out LOL PFFFFFFT

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIJGX5riedQ

    Clearly only won 4.5 million dollars on jeopardy because the goy writers were feeding him the answers. Same goes for Ken "Brigham Young PFFFFT" Jennings and his 74-game run.

    Imagine if any of these guys had to go against someone who went to Princeton in their respective disciplines.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    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.

    Stinker Pinker cannot suavely dismiss such a stark evolutionary fact, and in view of the discreditable role of Jews such as the media-owning Bonnier family in Sweden in the promotion of genocidal anti-European immigration and population policies, it is obvious why he declines to draw attention to MacDonald’s work by reviewing it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. @Neil Templeton
    Please provide some support for your claim that a "very high IQ" is required to publish interesting work in MacDonald's field. Please provide a threshold IQ and demonstrate why those who fall below the threshold cannot produce interesting results. I am curious to know why only the very intelligent have access to truth regarding observable human behavior. Also provide support for your previous claim that really smart young people from Wisconsin never seek careers as jazz pianists or teach high school in Jamaica.

    provide support for your previous claim that really smart young people from Wisconsin never seek careers as jazz pianists or teach high school in Jamaica.

    There’s not much point asking this person to back up what he’s saying. He won’t provide any answer, at least nothing coherent.

    Basically, it’s just a bunch of arrogant Jewboy bullshit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Lot
    "I don’t even agree with MacDonald but thinking Cofnas is in the same weight class as him is a bad joke."

    Nope. He's a loser who just lacks the IQ to have insight on the very complex subjects he writes about.

    "Between 1970 and 1974 he embarked on a career as a jazz pianist, spending two years in Jamaica, where he taught high school."

    That's just not something really smart people from Wisconsin do with their youth.

    "In 1981 he earned a PhD in biobehavioral sciences from the University of Connecticut"

    Soft science degree from a third tier university.

    "Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected and popular boys", Developmental Psychology, 23, 705–11 (1987)"

    Soft fuzzy wuzzy type of work in his middle age of the sort normally done by females.

    "MacDonald joined the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSU-LB) in 1985"

    Cal State Long Beach is a glorified community college with gigantic remedial math and reading programs and vast majority of students being black/hispanic.

    Really, it isn't personal, Pinker and Cofnas are at Harvard and Oxford and have a lot better uses of their limited time than CSULB cranks. They don't bother with Ward Churchill either.

    Nope. He’s a loser who just lacks the IQ to have insight …

    Is that a loser argument or just an asshole argument?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Only a finger note.

    Communism is not dead according to Marks.
    Marks claims that Communism will happen in most developed Capitalistic country.
    In Munich there were arguments among st revolutionaries.
    Lenin claimed that Communism can happen in any country even as backward as Russia.
    Only it needs transition period of socialism.
    Lenin’s theory has failed.
    But the Marks theory still stands.
    What is happening in US is maybe natural evolution of transformation of Capitalistic society into Communist society.
    …………………………………………………………………
    But then who the hell knows?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. anonymous[429] • Disclaimer says:

    utu:

    Here’s a recent paper by Curt Dunkel (one of the people actually referenced by Cofnas in his paper). If you just average the three studies, you get a Jewish IQ of 108, and a non-Jewish white of about 101, meaning they have a 7 point advantage (as do Agnostics, btw). If you weight the studies a bit more sensibly, it looks more like 6 points. Maybe 5. (The study that gives Jews the highest score, is a simple vocab test. The studies that give them lower scores test a bunch of different things.)

    It also studies Jewish personality. Interesting observation (to me): Jews are no more conscientious than Gentiles are. That almost surprised me a bit, as I would associate their culture of being known for studiousness with conscientiousness.

    Curt commented here on Unz (I assume it’s the same Curt in the study, hehe).

    PS the second studies’ (MIDUS II) results are not in the usual 100 mean 15 standard deviation form, but I include them below. You might observe that Agnostic/Athiests have *higher* IQs than Jews, in 2/3 studies. (Agnostics/Atheists are 20% of US population, according to what I read)

    MIDUS II:
    Jews 105.94
    Catholic 100.56
    Methodist 99.44
    Baptist 94.38
    Agnostic/Atheist 107.33

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Thanks. Interesting.

    ADD Health (Table 2) MIDUS II (Table 3) PT (Table 4)

    n(jews)=34 n(Jews)=98 n(Jews)=6915
    Jews 111.24 105.94 106.71
    Catholic 100.39 100.56 102.92
    Methodist 100.99 (P) 99.441 103.99 (P)
    Baptist -------- 94.38 --------
    Agnostic/Atheist 105.46 107.33 109.45

    Standard deviations for Project Talent (PT) are about 8.5. Why so low?

    What are SDs for MINDUS II after converting to IQ scale?

    , @Anonymous
    The average IQ in Israel is 95.

    The average IQ in the UK is 100.

    Taking into account that the percentage of non-whites in the UK (~20%) is similar to the percentage of Palestinians in Israel, it looks like the UK whites are 5 IQ points smarter that the Israeli Jews.

    But maybe not. Let's assume that the UK non-whites - coming from the World's premier shit-holes and gestating in the soft underbelly of the UK welfare system - are actually 100 IQ achievers. Let's assume that only the Palestinians are "dragging" the Jewish numbers. Well, if the Palestinians have an average IQ of 83.5 (Syria: 83, Jordan: 84) the Jews are still scoring only 98. So - not only are the Jews not smarter than everyone else - it looks like they're lagging behind both East Asians and the whites.

    BTW, the IQ results above are coming from Richard Lynn - the guy who published "The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement" and started the "110 Ashkenazi IQ" ball rolling. It's interesting that the 3 million Ashkenazi Jews in Israel couldn't shine the way they were supposed to.

    The study that gives Jews the highest score, is a simple vocab test. The studies that give them lower scores test a bunch of different things.
     
    A vocab test, eh? That's exactly what I would use to juice the numbers of a group that's massively overrepresented in terms of Higher Education attendance. That's not intelligence, but it's useful when the Goyim start asking stupid questions about their place in the world. After all, only the smartest and the chosenest ones should run the ultra-high IQ sectors like the Western MSM, Hollywood, porn and politics.

    In other news: (((Harwey Weinstein))) is, apparently not a paragon of culture, like we were led to believe. He was thanked more times than God at the Academy Awards but it didn't help. Let us hope that the only person in front of him, (((Steven Spielberg))), can make it all better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    Oops, I missed this link. The quote I find most interesting is: “I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools.”

    Yes, I wonder how representative are these studies? Esp., when you consider that Israel's IQ tends to be estimated at or below 95. (some of the studies have included Arabs and some excluded, and unfortunately none of then separated "Oriental" Jews which requires a employing a crude weighting and summing scheme to estimate the Ashkenazi score, as Lynn uses.)

    Also, this page notes that Tay-Sachs is also common among the Irish, Cajuns and a population of French Canadians. Perhaps frequency in some small inbred groups is due to genetic drift and not selection for IQ, as I've seen suggested in at least one paper.

    The proper names for “ Oriental” Jews are Persian, Sephardi and Mizrahi.

    The Persians are reasonably intelligent. The Mizrahi are low IQ.

    It’s complicated by the fact that the low IQ Haredim and other fanatic sects whose children are educated in a low performance private school system are very light skinned ashkenazis from E Europe. That may be one reason why the average Jewish IQ in Israel is 95.

    The Israeli government has admitted that the reason it recruited so many Russians was to raise the level of the population.

    70 years of the Haredim living on child benefit instead of working contributes to the low IQ level of Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Soros on the left.
    The man was sentenced to three months in jail for trading with foreknowledge by a Paris court.
    His success in speculation in currencies is ascribed by many to also foreknowledge.
    I still see left as socialist, the idea that the government has the duty the redistribute income through taxes, from high incomes to low.
    What Soros tries to do is destroy cultures, impose his will on a country as Hungary.
    Polish socialists call Soros’ followers, his Open Society, as Soros Jugend.
    How many jews have the opinion once expressed by a jew to me ‘take care, who has the money, has the power’, I do not know.
    What drives jews to behaviour as Soros’, maybe he knows, I can only speculate.
    What drove Bernard Baruch is pretty clear to me, world power for jewry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. utu says:
    @anonymous
    utu:

    Here's a recent paper by Curt Dunkel (one of the people actually referenced by Cofnas in his paper). If you just average the three studies, you get a Jewish IQ of 108, and a non-Jewish white of about 101, meaning they have a 7 point advantage (as do Agnostics, btw). If you weight the studies a bit more sensibly, it looks more like 6 points. Maybe 5. (The study that gives Jews the highest score, is a simple vocab test. The studies that give them lower scores test a bunch of different things.)

    It also studies Jewish personality. Interesting observation (to me): Jews are no more conscientious than Gentiles are. That almost surprised me a bit, as I would associate their culture of being known for studiousness with conscientiousness.

    Curt commented here on Unz (I assume it's the same Curt in the study, hehe).

    PS the second studies' (MIDUS II) results are not in the usual 100 mean 15 standard deviation form, but I include them below. You might observe that Agnostic/Athiests have *higher* IQs than Jews, in 2/3 studies. (Agnostics/Atheists are 20% of US population, according to what I read)

    MIDUS II:
    Jews 105.94
    Catholic 100.56
    Methodist 99.44
    Baptist 94.38
    Agnostic/Atheist 107.33

    Thanks. Interesting.

    ADD Health (Table 2) MIDUS II (Table 3) PT (Table 4)

    n(jews)=34 n(Jews)=98 n(Jews)=6915
    Jews 111.24 105.94 106.71
    Catholic 100.39 100.56 102.92
    Methodist 100.99 (P) 99.441 103.99 (P)
    Baptist ——– 94.38 ——–
    Agnostic/Atheist 105.46 107.33 109.45

    Standard deviations for Project Talent (PT) are about 8.5. Why so low?

    What are SDs for MINDUS II after converting to IQ scale?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Wally says:
    @Lot
    Despite its length, this article never even attempts to address the specific criticisms of CoC, instead consisting of mostly long-winded "clarifications."

    MacDonald's main problems is that he's motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    The suggestion that scholars "can't ignore bad ideas" is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. "Doing battle" against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

    1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?

    2. MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

    3. MacDonald's various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

    4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

    Of course I have not plowed through MacDonald's trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology. But in the marketplace of ideas, a proposal has to have enough initial credibility, and enough signs of adherence to the ground rules of scientific debate, to earn the precious currency of the attention of one's peers.
     

    What must be understood here is that Jew, ‘Lot’, is firm advocate of the absurdly fake ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’, the mother of all lies used against Euro-white gentiles.
    That glaringly, immediately reveals his irrational, manipulative, anti-science side.

    Lot would have no chance in a full-on debate with informed Revisionists, I suspect he realizes that, hence he resorts hysteria.

    There are, however, some Jews who have weaned themselves off of the fake ’6M Jew, 5M others, & gas chambers’, i.e.:

    “Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

    - Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

    If something cannot happen as alleged, then it did not.
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Svigor says:

    Really, it isn’t personal, Pinker and Cofnas are at Harvard and Oxford and have a lot better uses of their limited time than CSULB cranks. They don’t bother with Ward Churchill either.

    Pinker: Ima genius.
    Also Pinker: I know CoC is bunk, that’s why I didn’t read it.

    Know your champions…

    I am simply performing the same examination of the motivation MacDonald has for his ideology that he purports to perform on, I suppose, me.

    You’re clinging to ad hom because it’s all you’ve got.

    KMac: You believe X because of group evolutionary strategy of societal destruction.

    Lot: You believe X because of personal failures.

    Could you explain why one is ad hominem and the other isn’t?

    Why would I explain anything about your straw man?

    If I cared to combat anti-semitism (I don’t, rather I just like being right on the Internet, same as you), I would not be here, but on high traffic left-wing wing blogs, or doing op-eds. Or even more effectively, working my day job and using those earnings to fund college Hasbaras.

    Riiight. You always pop up in the threads about Jews because intellectual rigor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. Svigor says:

    Here’s a recent paper by Curt Dunkel (one of the people actually referenced by Cofnas in his paper). If you just average the three studies, you get a Jewish IQ of 108, and a non-Jewish white of about 101, meaning they have a 7 point advantage (as do Agnostics, btw). If you weight the studies a bit more sensibly, it looks more like 6 points. Maybe 5. (The study that gives Jews the highest score, is a simple vocab test. The studies that give them lower scores test a bunch of different things.)

    Funny, 108 is exactly the estimate I got for Ashkenazis worldwide (i.e., Israeli Ashkenazis included), on the back of a cocktail napkin.

    meaning they have a 7 point advantage (as do Agnostics, btw)

    Episcopalians have an 8 point advantage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    What shows the limits of IQ tests more than this fable that Jews do better than Whites. Hogwash.

    IQ tests also show the smartest lot, with IQs of 108, are Japanese, S. Koreans, Singaporeans, Taiwanese. But if you look at the cultural, artistic, scientific, technological, etc. achievements of all "Orientals" (East Asians) compared to White Europeans, there is an obvious difference in results.

    We should not be under the assumption that IQ test is completely objective. For example, I see little evidence that vocabulary tests are a measure of intelligence (as opposed to rote memorization or, more particularly, reading the set of books that contain the esoteric words which are tested, which tend to be Romantic literature versus, for example, applied physics).

    By another example, Jews like to use the fact that more Jews win Nobel prizes. What does that mean, if Jews are involved in the selection process? Maybe the selectors pick inferior Jews as winners for the same reason they pick inferior Jews for everything else, because they are highly ethnocentric and help each other succeed? That seems a far more rational and empirical basis for Jewish "success" than superior intelligence.
    , @DDM
    If Orthodox Jews have high IQs, they very skillfully hide it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Amasius says:
    @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/TOQJoyce/status/977656675388809217

    You’re “cherry picking,” dawg. Totally uncalled for. All sorts of jews rushed to denounce her and what she said there.

    Actually no, they didn’t, but that’s what we’re supposed to believe in Cofnas’ corner of Clown World.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. CalDre says:
    @Svigor

    Here’s a recent paper by Curt Dunkel (one of the people actually referenced by Cofnas in his paper). If you just average the three studies, you get a Jewish IQ of 108, and a non-Jewish white of about 101, meaning they have a 7 point advantage (as do Agnostics, btw). If you weight the studies a bit more sensibly, it looks more like 6 points. Maybe 5. (The study that gives Jews the highest score, is a simple vocab test. The studies that give them lower scores test a bunch of different things.)
     
    Funny, 108 is exactly the estimate I got for Ashkenazis worldwide (i.e., Israeli Ashkenazis included), on the back of a cocktail napkin.

    meaning they have a 7 point advantage (as do Agnostics, btw)
     
    Episcopalians have an 8 point advantage.

    What shows the limits of IQ tests more than this fable that Jews do better than Whites. Hogwash.

    IQ tests also show the smartest lot, with IQs of 108, are Japanese, S. Koreans, Singaporeans, Taiwanese. But if you look at the cultural, artistic, scientific, technological, etc. achievements of all “Orientals” (East Asians) compared to White Europeans, there is an obvious difference in results.

    We should not be under the assumption that IQ test is completely objective. For example, I see little evidence that vocabulary tests are a measure of intelligence (as opposed to rote memorization or, more particularly, reading the set of books that contain the esoteric words which are tested, which tend to be Romantic literature versus, for example, applied physics).

    By another example, Jews like to use the fact that more Jews win Nobel prizes. What does that mean, if Jews are involved in the selection process? Maybe the selectors pick inferior Jews as winners for the same reason they pick inferior Jews for everything else, because they are highly ethnocentric and help each other succeed? That seems a far more rational and empirical basis for Jewish “success” than superior intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Amasius says:
    @Neil Templeton
    Please provide some support for your claim that a "very high IQ" is required to publish interesting work in MacDonald's field. Please provide a threshold IQ and demonstrate why those who fall below the threshold cannot produce interesting results. I am curious to know why only the very intelligent have access to truth regarding observable human behavior. Also provide support for your previous claim that really smart young people from Wisconsin never seek careers as jazz pianists or teach high school in Jamaica.

    The man with the world’s highest IQ is a bar bouncer.

    I don’t think he’s jewish, either! Must be faking it!

    The man with the second highest IQ, possibly the highest, writes for television and stayed in high school for ten years.

    But he is jewish, so we know his IQ score is the real deal at least.

    This goy retard didn’t even go to college:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen

    Lancaster, PA’s Brad Rutter went to…. Johns Hopkins PFFFFFFFFT and dropped out LOL PFFFFFFT

    Clearly only won 4.5 million dollars on jeopardy because the goy writers were feeding him the answers. Same goes for Ken “Brigham Young PFFFFT” Jennings and his 74-game run.

    Imagine if any of these guys had to go against someone who went to Princeton in their respective disciplines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    There are lots of people who proclaim they have the highest IQ in the world. Doesn't mean it is true.

    BYU is the single best college in a huge region. It is not comparable to UConn or CSULB.

    You all seem to confuse general rules (groundbreaking research doesn't come out of professors at places like Cal State Long Beach) with "Every smart person goes to a top college" which is obviously false and not something I said or implied.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. All this debate about jews is becoming quite boring.
    If jews are more intelligent than average, quite possible.

    The jewish problem, as I see it, is that they’re quite unable of critisising themselves.
    Anyone interested now understands what Israel is, a brutal racist colonial state.
    Yet hardly any jew criticises Israel, those who do are ostracised, such as Finkelstein, Ilian Pappe, in the Netherlands Hamburger, traitors.
    What they say or write is not debated, they simply are not loyal, what indeed they are not.

    What it is that causes this lack of self reflection with jews, and lack of feeling about social behaviour, see the quote below, good question.
    Gilad Atzmon wants collective psychotherapy for all jews, difficult to organise, but the big problem is that psychotherapy just has effect with those who realise they have a problem.

    As I wrote here before, not just Finkelstein and Pappe criticise, not jewry as such, just Israel, but already around 1890 one Rothschild wrote to another ‘the only enemy of jews is jews’.
    I know just one jewish author who analyses the problem, see the quote.

    Were jews an insignificant group, such as the Muslim salafists, there would be hardly any problem.
    But they’re not, there is a lot of money with jews, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Rothschild, etc., they use this money to further their ends, as they see them.

    The first Soros in my opinion was Bernard Baruch.
    For me it is an interesting question, that will never be answered, ‘would there have been a WWII if Baruch had not existed ?’.

    Same about WWI guilt for Germany, could this fairy tale have emerged without Morgenthau, same question for the Armenian genocide.
    Both Baruch and Morgenthau hated Germans, because of the anti semitism that emerged there after 1870.

    That jews themselves were to a large extent responsible for this antisemitism, unbelievable for jews, as the identity is ‘eternally innocent victims’.

    The zionists were very stupid people, if anything is damning for jews it is the state of Israel, they never anticipated this.
    The origin of zionism is the same as German antisemitism after 1870, stupid behaviour in the E European countries, including European Russia.
    Solsjenytsyn describes it.
    The reaction to his book ‘much irritation’, it was not said that what he wrote was wrong, would have been quite difficult, there are as much references in the book as with Mearsheimer and Walt about AIPAC.

    One more thing, there is no such thing as ‘the jews’.
    The group that causes the problems is the asjkenazi jews, the main other group, sephardic jews, is discriminated in Israel by them.

    The quote
    ‘From prejudice to destruction, Anti-Semitism 1700-1933’, Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA

    Katz is/was professor of Jewish Educational and Social History, Emeritus, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

    Below is the end of the chapter, on the emergence of anti-Semitism, in Germany, around 1870.
    Scholars distinguish between anti Judaism, before Jews in most West European countries were granted equal rights, around 1800, and anti-Semitism, what began around 1870.

    Page 258, chapter ‘The incubation’.
    ‘The decisive factor in the anti-Semitic eruption was the failure to fulfil the condition upon which the eradication of Gentile suspicions of Jews had been predicated, namely, the disappearance of the tightly knit Jewish community. Far from disappearing, this community only assumed a new metamorphosis, not all aspects of which were regarded favourably by the Gentiles. Though Jews now were active inside German society, in economic life, culture, and politics, they nevertheless remained conspicuous as a group. Their pursuits, never centrally planned or directed, were determined by historical and sociological factors…….
    And despite their integration, they stood out as a closely knit group’.

    Page 259
    ‘What remained unimpaired was Jewish inbreeding, the maintaining of exclusively Jewish family ties. This, and the residues of that religious nonconformity, comparative economic co-operation, and social isolation, and some cultural peculiarity gave the Jewish group a special physiognomy. If the group was different from what it had been a century before, it certainly had not assumed the characteristics expected by those who propounded the idea of fusion with Christian society.

    Thus, instead of completely disappearing as expected, the Jewish community merely underwent a transformation. And the old stereotypes were now revived. The wait-and-see attitude of the Gentile population, which involved the concealment and suppression of anti-Jewish sentiment, turned into overt resentment. This was the point at which anti-Semitism boiled over’.

    End of chapter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. anonymous[402] • Disclaimer says:

    utu:

    Regarding data from this paper.
    I’m not a statistician in this space, and I didn’t even notice how low the Project Talent standard deviations were. (All the PT SDs are about the same: around 8.5). Maybe Curt Dunkel, or someone more familiar with IQ statistics, could inform us. (would that imply that all these iqs are about almost twice these numbers? That wouldn’t make sense.)

    PT IQ (SD)
    Jewish 106.71 (8.34)
    Catholic 102.93 (8.66)
    Protestant 103.99 (8.93)
    No religion 109.45 (8.83)

    Regarding the Midus II data, which looks like:

    MidusII IQ (SD)
    Jewish .36 (1.10)
    Catholic .04 (.94)
    Methodist .04 (.98)
    Baptist .36 (1.04)
    Agnostic/Atheist .47 (1.04)

    I may have been wrong, but I applied the formula:
    100 + .36 * (1.1 * 15), giving:
    105.94 for Jewish, etc.
    Catholic 100.56
    Methodist 99.44
    Baptist 94.38
    Agnostic/Atheist 107.33

    Hope I didn’t do it wrong!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    As I've said (embarrassing to quote oneself)-IQ is not that important with regard to high levels of creativity; also, there are other psychological functions which could be of immensely more importance than ordinary IQ, and which are not measured (perhaps not even measurable- creativity, motivation, visual "thinking", imagination, intellectual non-dogmatism etc.)

    Over-representation does not mean much. How many inhabitants, and more- literate inhabitants, had Florence from 1300 to 1500? And yet, it produced Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Donatello, Brunelleschi, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Machiavelli, Galileo, ..which is a string of hardly surpassed real geniuses, the summits in their respective areas from literature & political philosophy to visual arts, architecture & astronomy and physics.

    All Nobel prizes pale in comparison with this.

    What were then these Florentines? Victims of “super-genius gene” contagion?

    , @utu
    (1) Not sure how you derived the scaling formula. Their scale seem to have mean 0 but what is its SD? In general IQ=100+(IQold-MEANold)*15/SDold

    (2) Project Talent SDs indicate that sample was trimmed in selection process. Probably the lower tail. But this would raise the mean. No discussion in the paper about it.

    (4) Here is frequency of Jews and Atheists & Agnostics populations in samples

    ADD
    Jews 0.94% (34)
    A&A 26.7%

    MIDUS
    Jews 5.1% (96)
    A&A 5.8%

    PT
    Jews 6.1% (6915)
    A&A 4.3%

    The first sample as far as Jews are concerned might be too small (n=34) so I would shelve it. The other two have higher Jewish percentage by about 2-3 factor to their population. Atheists and Agnostics in these two samples are comparable to Jewish size. I would not be surprised that Jewish suprematist HBD brigade would argue that A&A contain Jews who are A&A and this explains high IQ of the A&A group.

    Who is A&A group is a good question?

    (5) Accuracy? Differences between MINDUS and PT indicate that these are not statistical errors but bias. The tests must have been different. Catholics 100.56 and 102.92 respectively which gives 2.4 difference. For a sample of 1000 1SD random error should be less than 0.45=1000/sqrt(15). There is a bias between samples/tests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. TheBoom says:

    Cofnas’ critique of MacDonald is just another twist to the playbook that has been so successful for Snopes. Justify (through lies, distortion and phony strawmen) that anything which conflicts with their worldview is false. Along with the ADL and Splc they can in the short-term get people to avoid contact with that dangerous idea or fact. In the long-term they can pave the way for censorship and banishment. Problem for them is that goys are increasingly catching on to this scam and Cofnas will have succeeded primarily in driving more people to check out MacDonald. Good job.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. donut says:
    @Lot

    MacDonald’s basic thesis (which he substantiates persuasively) is that numerous intellectual movements over the past century that have been spearheaded and supported by prominent Jews in the West,
     
    That has never been seriously disputed

    have carried with them a covert underside designed to advance Jewish interests
     
    Not a real scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. "No evidence that X was to advance Jewish interests, and if fact never actually did so? Doesn't matter, I said they were 'covertly designed!"

    Also, as Cofnas notes, every non-anti-semitic intellectual movement in the West is heavily Jewish, from Communism to Austrian school economics. Not to mention things like chess, computer programming, and theoretical physics that have little to nothing to do with politics.

    You also left out the big issue: the specific scientific claim that Jewish intellectuals are motivated by genes honed in "group evolution." No actual evolutionary biologist, including those well outside the grasp of the PC police or who just don't care, takes this seriously. The math on "group selection" just doesn't add up.

    Speech codes cannot stop their spread.
     
    Actually they can, but are not needed here, nor are they right as a matter of principle. But if you want to harm free speech and see it restricted, abusing your rights in obnoxious ways is the best way to do so.

    “Actually they can, but are not needed here, nor are they right as a matter of principle. But if you want to harm free speech and see it restricted, abusing your rights in obnoxious ways is the best way to do so.”

    Whoops .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. mcohen says:

    Who is kevin macdonald.is he someone famous.personally i have always enjoyed hesse,nabakov,rand,grass,hemingway,ruark,mad magazine,early esquire and playboy,dylan,whole earth catalog,omni……..etc
    Those were the days
    Herman charles bosman wrote “a sip of jeripego”.worth a read.
    The book of job is my guide,it is a worthy companion and a good lesson to be learnt especially for authors like k.macdonad.
    True critique regardless of the subject has to come from someone who has first undergone the rigors of self critique of the ego.fear and anger are your giveaways kevin macdonald.you are nothing but a quater pounder

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. @CalDre

    * Jews “follow group evolutionary strategy”. He didn’t prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No “strategy” in such a behavior.
     
    The fact that Jews still exist, both religiously and more importantly, tribally, two millennium after the Diaspora (and hence ceasing to constitute the majority group) is overpowering, irrefutable proof that Jews have a group evolutionary strategy. How many groups can make this claim? And which of these is not also a strongly ethnocentric (supremacist, in modern nomenclature) group?

    The entire comment is a virtual denial of reality, presuming that there must be some constant, verbal expression of this strategy in order for there to be one. First, words are merely words, it is actions that matter, and Jewish tribal actions/identity speak for themselves. Second Jews in fact do exhibit a group evolutionary strategy: one as the "chosen" ones (with all of its implications in the various Jewish historical texts, such as the Talmud), and another as the "Is it good for the Jews" introspection. And it is displayed indirectly with Jews' psychotic obsession with being Jewish.

    You claim also that there is no "strategy" in the behavior of a "human collective want[ing] to preserve its identity & to thrive." Well one would imagine so, but, as Kevin MacDonald has aptly demonstrated, it is Jews that are principal instigators in the destruction not only of individual White cultures (Swedish, American, German, etc.), but of the White race as a whole. Multiculturalism, mass immigration, Hollywood Jewish "culture" and the like are all designed to destroy White identity and for Whites to fail. Hence Whites not pursuing their self interest is the actual "strategy" - the "strategy" employed by globalists, largely Jews, to destroy the White race and ethnicities. The only "pure" race to be left, when all is said and done, is the ethnically pure and ever-expanding Israel, perhaps with the global capital in Jerusalem (why does that sound familiar?). So it is a strategy Jews are employing, to leave Jews as the last united group left standing. "The people, united, will never be defeated", and Jews' potent ethnocentrism has kept Jews united, and strong, over the centuries. Knowing that unity and self-consciousness is a great empower of a people, Jews wanted to derive their competitors for power - mainly, Whites - of this strength.

    As to Jews wanting to dominate the world, as a tribe, the evidence for it is of course overwhelming, not just in Jewish texts ("Messiah" etc.), but in Jewish tribal actions (by this I mean actions of the organized - the "State" - portion of the tribe, every tribe has its chieftains/royalty and leaders and institutions, that's what makes it a tribe, and so does of course the Jewish one). And why shouldn't they? Is it "anti-Roman" to say the Romans sought a global empire? Or anti-English to say the British sought a global empire? Of course not, one would not need to refute such an utterly nonsense accusation in any other case. It is a particular habit of Jews to accuse someone of wanting to exterminate all Jews merely for pointing out that, yes, Jews act and have acted in their tribal interests (as if the very existence of the State of Israel, let alone the saga of how that came to be and how it is maintained, alone does not completely validate the proposition). A pathetic, illogical and evil ploy, but one employed continuously by Jews - acting, guess what, in the interests of the tribe/hive.

    The fact that Jews still exist, both religiously and more importantly, tribally, two millennium after the Diaspora (and hence ceasing to constitute the majority group) is overpowering, irrefutable proof that Jews have a group evolutionary strategy. How many groups can make this claim? And which of these is not also a strongly ethnocentric (supremacist, in modern nomenclature) group?

    What kind of argument is this? Zoroastrians, older religionists than Jews, still exist too, in the diaspora as Parsis in India, Britain.. well after they’ve been almost completely eradicated from their ancestral homeland in Iran. These are religions which can last if you don’t literally exterminate its adherents. The Chinese, who are ca. 3500 years old as a culture still exist, both in & out of China. So what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Zoroastrians, older religionists than Jews, still exist too
     
    True, it is one of the exceptions. I don't know that much about the roughly 200,000 contemporary adherents, but what is obvious is that the vast majority of Persians converted to Islam, and only a relatively small percentage remained Zoroastrians. Can the same be said of Jews? Also the Parsis do and did view themselves in strong ethnocentric terms - forbidding intermarriage, for example, and forming ghettos. But, unlike Jews, only a few communities remain; whereas Jews maintained hundreds of self-segregated communities throughout the Diaspora. While there are some similarities, the Jewish case is greatly more exaggerated in terms of powerful ethnocentrism.

    The Chinese, who are ca. 3500 years old as a culture still exist, both in & out of China.
     
    Chinese have been the majority in their society for 3,500 years. Hence it does not address my point about failure to assimilate. And of course Chinese do not lack a strong ethnocentricity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. iffen says:
    @geokat62
    I originally posted this comment under the Cofnas thread. I think it deserves to be reposted here.

    ———————————

    Came across this terrific, but lengthy, interview by Luke Ford (someone with an Anglo-Saxon background who converted to Orthodox Judaism) of both Prof. Kevin MacDonald and PhD candidate Nathan Confas, the co-author of this article.

    https://youtu.be/ARhqt38bMZA

    Given the length of the video, I decided to transcribe what I consider to be the most interesting segment of the exchange between Ford and Confas, which begins at 20:40:33:

    Luke Ford – Is anti-Jewish sentiment always irrational?

    Nathan Cofnas – Ah (very long pause) in that general sense, I would say “no.” But a big deal of anti-Jewish sentiment is irrational.

    Luke Ford – Oh, for example, every major American Jewish organization promotes immigration amnesty. They want the 20 to 30 million people in this country here illegally – now, generally low IQ types – who are here in this country illegally, they want to grant them amnesty. And when they make their arguments, they never talk about what’s good for America. They talk about you know these lofty, philosophical, moral things. And so I see all the major Jewish organizations, and that includes the Orthodox Union and the Agudath Israel, they are trying to fill my bedroom with poisonous snakes. And so how do I feel about people who try to fill my bedroom with poisonous snakes? I don’t bother about differentiating, I just hate these organizations, and I hate the people who run them, and it’s just like passionate.. and I’m Jewish. So, what is the non-Jew going to think when they see every major American Jewish organization, you know, try to inject poison into the American bloodstream?

    Nathan Cofnas – That’s why, as I’ve argued publicly, I think organizations like the ADL are very bad for the Jews in that they are causing much more antisemitism then they’re preventing. In fact, I think they do nothing to prevent antisemitism, at all. I understand why people resent these organizations and why they might blame Jews. Because these organizations themselves pretend to speak on behalf of the Jewish community. So, a non-Jew could take them at their word and say “ok, you represent the Jewish community and you’re advocating something unreasonable”… and, maybe, Jews are unreasonable.

    Luke Ford – How much responsibility do ordinary Jews have that their leaders are hell bent by injecting poison into the American bloodstream?

    Nathan Cofnas – That’s an interesting ethical question. What kind of responsibility does a community have for collective action, the actions of its leaders? I think the Jewish community does have some responsibility to push back against these self-appointed leaders in a more public and aggressive way than we have. I think, insofar as we can be held collectively responsible for our actions, I think Jews have made mistakes in these areas.
     
    While this is pretty consistent with what I’ve been saying for quite some time, it’s refreshing to see someone from the Jewish community who is honest enough to admit this. Could you imagine our resident maven ever admitting to something like this? I couldn’t.

    I think it deserves to be reposted here.

    Where would the world be if compulsive copy and pasters didn’t think that their copied material shouldn’t be pasted as many times and in as many places as possible?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    IOW, you cannot refute what he posted . LOL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. iffen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I have been following Steve Sailer’s blog and writing since about 2001.
     
    And each year of reading iSteve resulted in an average drop of 3 IQ points, leading to your current state of abject intellectual squalor.

    But all those words! Think of the word count!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    You can do better than your jibes here. As to this one, surely Revusky is one of the most longwinded narcissists ever takung space on UR.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Lot
    Despite its length, this article never even attempts to address the specific criticisms of CoC, instead consisting of mostly long-winded "clarifications."

    MacDonald's main problems is that he's motivated by resentment of successful academics, leading him to adopt his antisemitic grant theories first, then look for evidence to support it.

    Cofnas was nice enough to generously give MacDonald the time of day, put Pinker is the one who has the better argument:

    The suggestion that scholars "can't ignore bad ideas" is a nonstarter. In science there are a thousand bad ideas for every good one. "Doing battle" against all of them is not an option for mere mortals, and doing battle against some of them is a tacit acknowledgment that those have enough merit to exceed the onerous threshold of attention-worthiness. MacDonald's ideas, as presented in summaries that would serve as a basis for further examination, do not pass that threshold, for many reasons:

    1. By stating that Jews promulgate scientific hypotheses because they are Jewish, he is engaging in ad hominem argumentation that is outside the bounds of normal scientific discourse and an obvious waste of time to engage. MacDonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what's the point of replying to them?

    2. MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong.

    3. MacDonald's various theses, even if worthy of scientifically debate individually, collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language. It is impossible to avoid the impression that this is not an ordinary scientific hypothesis.

    4. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture).

    Of course I have not plowed through MacDonald's trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology. But in the marketplace of ideas, a proposal has to have enough initial credibility, and enough signs of adherence to the ground rules of scientific debate, to earn the precious currency of the attention of one's peers.
     

    “Macdonald has already announced that I will reject his ideas because I am Jewish, so what’s the point of replying to them?”
    The point of replying would be to demonstrate not to Macdonald but to a scientific audience that his ideas are false. Doh!
    For someone apparently belonging to a group with an average IQ in the region of 110, this is disappointing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @CalDre

    For instance, except for being Austrian Jew, what is “Jewish” in early, Freudian variant of psychoanalysis?
     
    Except for being an Austrian Jew? You mean, except for the fact that a quite ethnocentric Jew came up with that psycho-garbage, what do Jews have to do with it? That's a good one!

    But, I have something besides the obvious. Freud's id, ego and superego garbage is modeled on kabbalistic traditions. Sure Freud made some changes to the mystical underpinnings, but what good rabbi doesn't adjust his message to the times? This underpinning led Carl Jung to exclaim: "a full understanding of the Jewish origins of psychoanalysis would carry us beyond Jewish Orthodoxy into the subterranean workings of Hasidism and then into the intricacies of the Kabbalah which still remain unexplored psychologically." This article claims, consistent with some of MacDonald's observations, that Freud handed psycho-garbage to Jung to (deceptively attempt to) remove the Jewish connection to it.

    But no doubt that is all "anti-Semitic". So, since only Jews have a voice on anything related to Jews, let's hear it from the virulently anti-Semitic Dennis B. Klein, director of the Center for Holocaust Studies of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, who has authored a book entitled: Jewish Origins of the Psychoanalytic Movement, in which he:


    explores the Jewish consciousness of Freud and his followers and the impact of their Jewish self-conceptions on the early psychoanalytic movement. Using little-known sources such as the diaries and papers of Freud's protégé Otto Rank and records of the Vienna B'nai B'rith that document Freud's active participation in that Jewish fraternal society, Klein argues that the feeling of Jewish ethical responsibility, aimed at renewing ties with Germans and with all humanity, stimulated the work of Freud, Rank, and other analysts and constituted the driving force of the psychoanalytic movement.
     
    Except I would say, it wasn't "the feeling of Jewish ethical responsibility" as much as "the feeling of Jewish ethical [and tribal] superiority" that was the driving factor of Freud's psycho-garbage.

    Except for being an Austrian Jew? You mean, except for the fact that a quite ethnocentric Jew came up with that psycho-garbage, what do Jews have to do with it? That’s a good one!

    But, I have something besides the obvious. Freud’s id, ego and superego garbage is modeled on kabbalistic traditions. Sure Freud made some changes to the mystical underpinnings, but what good rabbi doesn’t adjust his message to the times? This underpinning led Carl Jung to exclaim: “a full understanding of the Jewish origins of psychoanalysis would carry us beyond Jewish Orthodoxy into the subterranean workings of Hasidism and then into the intricacies of the Kabbalah which still remain unexplored psychologically.” This article claims, consistent with some of MacDonald’s observations, that Freud handed psycho-garbage to Jung to (deceptively attempt to) remove the Jewish connection to it.

    This is worthless, a combination of antisemitism & Jewish ethnic projections. Do you really think that obscure & obscurantist articles amount to anything?

    Freud was clueless about Kabbalah, although one Jewish propagandist, David Bakan, tried to persuade the public that it was not so:

    Psychoanalysis had been, before it became apparent that is was a sort of metaphysics, designed by its “founding father” as the true science of psychological functioning which will have been proven right by further discoveries in neurophysiology & brain research. Freud’s goal was to become “Darwin of the mind”, although his intellectual predecessors were more in the field of literature & philosophy (Sophocles, Shakespeare, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, ..) & his practice in Paris where he had been fascinated by hypnosis.

    This is real Freud, not a cartoon from conspiracy theories:

    and indispensable CC

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Freud was of course right about the subconscious, what w're conscious of is a very small part of what goes on in our head.
    Our head is, seen in evolution, a weird collection of very old, old and new parts, often in conflict with one another.
    His great accomplishment was to regard those at the time seen as just crazy or so as human beings with with an illness.
    Very few people still believe in psychoanalysis as an effective therapy.
    His followers I knew in the Netherlands reminded me of a religious sect.
    What Freud did not know, could not know, is how in our head chemo electrical processes determine our thoughts, deepest feelings, of which we most of the time are not aware.
    The conscious I see as a means to check outcomes, on consistency, fitting into society, etc.
    Had Freud been alive, he would be flabbergasted to see how small quantities of chemicals can change our thoughts.
    , @CalDre

    This is worthless, a combination of antisemitism & Jewish ethnic projections. Do you really think that obscure & obscurantist articles amount to anything?
     
    Blah, blah, blah, blah, ad hominem garbage from a freaking arsehole. As to obscurity, one was from a Kaballah website (gee, I wonder how that is relevant), another from a popular Jewish website (gee, I wonder how that is relevant), and another from an ADL luminary (gee, suddenly ADL is "obscure, is it?). I can give you more sources, for example, NYU, or is that also "obscure"? What qualifies as "not obscure", does it have to be "mainstream" or it is false?

    Freud was clueless about Kabbalah
     
    Actually it is you who is clueless. I have provided numerous sources, including Jung, remarking on Freud's intimate familiarity with Kabbalism. And at one point, as I was researching it, I compared the Kaballah teachings with Freud's id/ego/superego and found them remarkably similar. So keep shouting about anti-Semitism and whatever else you want, it doesn't change the facts.

    before it became apparent that is was a sort of metaphysics
     
    Oh, so it just miraculously "became apparent" that it was ... mystical, i.e., Kabbalistic. Just by accident. Nothing to do with Freud being a Kabbalistic Jew. Hokey dokey, buddy.

    not a cartoon from conspiracy theories
     
    There's no conspiracy theory, but you are again attempting to use a censorship tool reserved for freaking clueless arseholes. I guess you can't help, what you are.

    And I've read Freud, and he is a charlatan idiot. Probably you want to fuck your mom while high on coke too, that is your issue, but do try to control yourself, will you?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @anonymous
    utu:

    Regarding data from this paper.
    I'm not a statistician in this space, and I didn't even notice how low the Project Talent standard deviations were. (All the PT SDs are about the same: around 8.5). Maybe Curt Dunkel, or someone more familiar with IQ statistics, could inform us. (would that imply that all these iqs are about almost twice these numbers? That wouldn't make sense.)

    PT IQ (SD)
    Jewish 106.71 (8.34)
    Catholic 102.93 (8.66)
    Protestant 103.99 (8.93)
    No religion 109.45 (8.83)


    Regarding the Midus II data, which looks like:

    MidusII IQ (SD)
    Jewish .36 (1.10)
    Catholic .04 (.94)
    Methodist .04 (.98)
    Baptist .36 (1.04)
    Agnostic/Atheist .47 (1.04)

    I may have been wrong, but I applied the formula:
    100 + .36 * (1.1 * 15), giving:
    105.94 for Jewish, etc.
    Catholic 100.56
    Methodist 99.44
    Baptist 94.38
    Agnostic/Atheist 107.33


    Hope I didn't do it wrong!

    As I’ve said (embarrassing to quote oneself)-IQ is not that important with regard to high levels of creativity; also, there are other psychological functions which could be of immensely more importance than ordinary IQ, and which are not measured (perhaps not even measurable- creativity, motivation, visual “thinking”, imagination, intellectual non-dogmatism etc.)

    Over-representation does not mean much. How many inhabitants, and more- literate inhabitants, had Florence from 1300 to 1500? And yet, it produced Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Donatello, Brunelleschi, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Machiavelli, Galileo, ..which is a string of hardly surpassed real geniuses, the summits in their respective areas from literature & political philosophy to visual arts, architecture & astronomy and physics.

    All Nobel prizes pale in comparison with this.

    What were then these Florentines? Victims of “super-genius gene” contagion?

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. CalDre says:
    @Lot

    MacDonald’s basic thesis (which he substantiates persuasively) is that numerous intellectual movements over the past century that have been spearheaded and supported by prominent Jews in the West,
     
    That has never been seriously disputed

    have carried with them a covert underside designed to advance Jewish interests
     
    Not a real scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. "No evidence that X was to advance Jewish interests, and if fact never actually did so? Doesn't matter, I said they were 'covertly designed!"

    Also, as Cofnas notes, every non-anti-semitic intellectual movement in the West is heavily Jewish, from Communism to Austrian school economics. Not to mention things like chess, computer programming, and theoretical physics that have little to nothing to do with politics.

    You also left out the big issue: the specific scientific claim that Jewish intellectuals are motivated by genes honed in "group evolution." No actual evolutionary biologist, including those well outside the grasp of the PC police or who just don't care, takes this seriously. The math on "group selection" just doesn't add up.

    Speech codes cannot stop their spread.
     
    Actually they can, but are not needed here, nor are they right as a matter of principle. But if you want to harm free speech and see it restricted, abusing your rights in obnoxious ways is the best way to do so.

    Not a real scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. “No evidence that X was to advance Jewish interests, and if fact never actually did so? Doesn’t matter, I said they were ‘covertly designed!”

    LOL, yes, it is difficult to prove intent, but yet, there are millions sitting in prison on this day. I suppose we should let them all free, as circumstantial evidence or forced confessions is all we have?

    In fact, though, these matters are falsifiable. Because there always come folks who show their hand, inadvertently or by “treason”, and prove the theory. Benjamin Friedman comes to mind, but there are many others. Some are outright open about it, like the neo-cons who claim US interests and Israeli interests are identical. Obviously, and “scientifically”, this can only happen if the US adopts Israeli interests, which is exactly the modus operandi of the treasonous neo-con scum that befouls the Swamp. One can also see it in the obvious double-standards, e.g., Jews aggressively supporting massive Arab and African immigration into Europe and the US, while at the same time ethnically cleansing Africans (even Jewish ones!) and Arabs from Israel.

    What can’t be scientifically proven is the largely Jewish-inspired “secular humanist” religion, which has such items of faith as Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Racism is Bad, Homophobia is Bad, and thousands of other religious values which they forcibly try to shove down everyone’s throats, with hysterical condemnation, if not outright incarceration or impoverishment, of anyone who refuses to swallow their deleterious witches’ brew.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mishra
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Cannot see any double standard, if the objective is to destroy the European cultures, while keeping the jewish one.
    If this theory is right, then again stupid jewish behaviour, as some jews comprehend.
    They understand that migrants most of the time hate jews, Palestinians are jews.
    All the countries Israel tries to destroy, or has destroyed, with USA support, are Muslim.
    Jewish enterprises and institutions need more and more protection.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. anonomy says:

    The Jews aren’t the people displacing the whites and whites seem quite happy to have themselves displaced. Along with the fact that no one is allowed to move themselves away from anyone who wishes to be next to them, no freedom of movement or associations. The majority of Jews are atheists but ride the tide of God’s chosen even though they don’t believe in God. Obviously God must be a white Goy. They will be displaced too based on how small their population is already, they will probably go Asian rather than African, all in due time, you know, “you reap what you sow”,
    Jews and Christians have never gotten along, but good propaganda and public relations after WWII saw a change in how people thought. I can’t imagine how many times they had to rewrite the bible, must have been exhausting. For all their intelligence, they wrote the test, they really aren’t any smarter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    " Jews and Christians have never gotten along, "

    For me it is pretty probable that christianity was created by Paul, as secret agent of the Roman king, to destroy the jewish culture, after two large armies had destroyed jewry politically.
    Christianity was aimed at jews, a far more easy religion.
    This also explains that the bible begins with the jewish Torah.
    Alas propaganda often backfires, christianity destroyed the Roman empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Bardon Kaldian

    Except for being an Austrian Jew? You mean, except for the fact that a quite ethnocentric Jew came up with that psycho-garbage, what do Jews have to do with it? That’s a good one!

    But, I have something besides the obvious. Freud’s id, ego and superego garbage is modeled on kabbalistic traditions. Sure Freud made some changes to the mystical underpinnings, but what good rabbi doesn’t adjust his message to the times? This underpinning led Carl Jung to exclaim: “a full understanding of the Jewish origins of psychoanalysis would carry us beyond Jewish Orthodoxy into the subterranean workings of Hasidism and then into the intricacies of the Kabbalah which still remain unexplored psychologically.” This article claims, consistent with some of MacDonald’s observations, that Freud handed psycho-garbage to Jung to (deceptively attempt to) remove the Jewish connection to it.
     
    This is worthless, a combination of antisemitism & Jewish ethnic projections. Do you really think that obscure & obscurantist articles amount to anything?

    Freud was clueless about Kabbalah, although one Jewish propagandist, David Bakan, tried to persuade the public that it was not so:
    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41rBG1LiI4L._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Psychoanalysis had been, before it became apparent that is was a sort of metaphysics, designed by its "founding father" as the true science of psychological functioning which will have been proven right by further discoveries in neurophysiology & brain research. Freud's goal was to become "Darwin of the mind", although his intellectual predecessors were more in the field of literature & philosophy (Sophocles, Shakespeare, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, ..) & his practice in Paris where he had been fascinated by hypnosis.

    This is real Freud, not a cartoon from conspiracy theories:

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51c6NToraTL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51tHt8uaB5L._SX347_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41uI8vLlIPL._SX333_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    and indispensable CC

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/418-zyt0JXL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Freud was of course right about the subconscious, what w’re conscious of is a very small part of what goes on in our head.
    Our head is, seen in evolution, a weird collection of very old, old and new parts, often in conflict with one another.
    His great accomplishment was to regard those at the time seen as just crazy or so as human beings with with an illness.
    Very few people still believe in psychoanalysis as an effective therapy.
    His followers I knew in the Netherlands reminded me of a religious sect.
    What Freud did not know, could not know, is how in our head chemo electrical processes determine our thoughts, deepest feelings, of which we most of the time are not aware.
    The conscious I see as a means to check outcomes, on consistency, fitting into society, etc.
    Had Freud been alive, he would be flabbergasted to see how small quantities of chemicals can change our thoughts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "Had Freud been alive, he would be flabbergasted to see how small quantities of chemicals can change our thoughts."

    I think that Freud was aware of chemical influence on the mind. He promoted cocaine use for his "patients".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @candid_observer

    You also left out the big issue: the specific scientific claim that Jewish intellectuals are motivated by genes honed in “group evolution.” No actual evolutionary biologist, including those well outside the grasp of the PC police or who just don’t care, takes this seriously. The math on “group selection” just doesn’t add up.
     
    I don't know why people keep saying these sorts of things.

    In fact, cultural group selection, as spelled out by Boyd and Richerson, is by now a well established phenomenon. It is not the same as group selection in ordinary population genetics; in particular, cultural group selection does not require selection for "altruistic" genes -- that is, genes which promote the interests of the group at the expense of those of the individual. Cultural group selection typically involves the use of punishments for violation of group norms -- punishments that ensure that the interests of members of the groups will suffer if they flout those norms. This mechanism generally aligns individual interests with those of the group.

    And because Jews have practiced endogamy for so many generations, the niche they have occupied should certainly have selected effectively for genes which will promote reproductive success in that niche.

    Given these facts, it's almost trivially true that Jews have undergone significant cultural group selection, and related genetic selection.

    Whether the details align well with MacDonald's account is another question. But there is some account that is both true and interesting.

    Frankly, thinking otherwise is just another form of evolution denial. Why should such concepts apply to all kinds of human groups, but not to the Jews?

    Well put.

    I always think of the regimented organization of a baboon troop on the move when I imagine “group selection”. The strength of the tribe, their survival, depends upon a geometry, a Form, an Idea to use Plato’s term. It is the pattern in which each individual assumes a place according to their age, sex and rank that is the essence of their evolutionary strategy. If an individual can or does not conform then they are excluded and, as one baboon researcher pointed out, “a lone baboon is a dead baboon”. So you either conform to the group evolutionary strategy or you don’t mate and your genes are surely not transmitted to the next generation. What could be clearer? But I note that those who question group evolutionary strategy do so by posing the, as you point out, straw-man argument of completely selfless behavior (angelic).

    But you can see why Jews would insist that they each of and by themselves, “did it all by myself”, for that reflects the greater glory on their (admittedly notable) achievements. This is a very common trait among those who have done very well in life. They–selfishly, but that characteristic is part of their reason for their success–deny that they needed any support from the many people, both past and present, whose labors helped put them where they. And this indeed isn’t good group evolutionary strategy–so perhaps its self-limiting.

    A more general point is that the Western Mind, at least the English manifestation of it, dwells on specific individual causes in explaining everything. The other approach focuses on the integrity of the whole, the pattern, the Field within which individual behavior occurs. So most intellectuals today, especially in the USA, have a built-in bias of the sort Kuhn was talking about and cannot see that their method of reasoning is stilted in favor of the particular and against the whole. This is a serious fault.

    No physicist would attempt to explain the behavior of a particle without taking into consideration the effect of the strength of field within which the particle operates. The two condition one another. A particle affects its surrounding field and is affected by the field. This is not metaphor. This is real and until social scientists adopt the revolutionary thought processes of 20th century physics, they are hopelessly behind the times and their work will quickly fade.

    Unless you separate a particle and launch it by a giant gun, say a particle accelerator or the Sun, it behaves as a part of a Field, a constellation, a harmonic whole. The Anglo mind doesn’t seem to be capable of grasping this reality, though the Continental mind did and does so–for which the Continentals are called “fascists” by the entropy-loving Anglo intellectuals. (Entropy-loving, where did that come from? Well, particles moving randomly, having lost all coherence is the basic state of entropy).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @CalDre

    Not a real scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. “No evidence that X was to advance Jewish interests, and if fact never actually did so? Doesn’t matter, I said they were ‘covertly designed!”
     
    LOL, yes, it is difficult to prove intent, but yet, there are millions sitting in prison on this day. I suppose we should let them all free, as circumstantial evidence or forced confessions is all we have?

    In fact, though, these matters are falsifiable. Because there always come folks who show their hand, inadvertently or by "treason", and prove the theory. Benjamin Friedman comes to mind, but there are many others. Some are outright open about it, like the neo-cons who claim US interests and Israeli interests are identical. Obviously, and "scientifically", this can only happen if the US adopts Israeli interests, which is exactly the modus operandi of the treasonous neo-con scum that befouls the Swamp. One can also see it in the obvious double-standards, e.g., Jews aggressively supporting massive Arab and African immigration into Europe and the US, while at the same time ethnically cleansing Africans (even Jewish ones!) and Arabs from Israel.

    What can't be scientifically proven is the largely Jewish-inspired "secular humanist" religion, which has such items of faith as Evolution, Big Bang, Global Warming, Racism is Bad, Homophobia is Bad, and thousands of other religious values which they forcibly try to shove down everyone's throats, with hysterical condemnation, if not outright incarceration or impoverishment, of anyone who refuses to swallow their deleterious witches' brew.

    Cannot see any double standard, if the objective is to destroy the European cultures, while keeping the jewish one.
    If this theory is right, then again stupid jewish behaviour, as some jews comprehend.
    They understand that migrants most of the time hate jews, Palestinians are jews.
    All the countries Israel tries to destroy, or has destroyed, with USA support, are Muslim.
    Jewish enterprises and institutions need more and more protection.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. CalDre says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    The fact that Jews still exist, both religiously and more importantly, tribally, two millennium after the Diaspora (and hence ceasing to constitute the majority group) is overpowering, irrefutable proof that Jews have a group evolutionary strategy. How many groups can make this claim? And which of these is not also a strongly ethnocentric (supremacist, in modern nomenclature) group?
     
    What kind of argument is this? Zoroastrians, older religionists than Jews, still exist too, in the diaspora as Parsis in India, Britain.. well after they've been almost completely eradicated from their ancestral homeland in Iran. These are religions which can last if you don't literally exterminate its adherents. The Chinese, who are ca. 3500 years old as a culture still exist, both in & out of China. So what?

    Zoroastrians, older religionists than Jews, still exist too

    True, it is one of the exceptions. I don’t know that much about the roughly 200,000 contemporary adherents, but what is obvious is that the vast majority of Persians converted to Islam, and only a relatively small percentage remained Zoroastrians. Can the same be said of Jews? Also the Parsis do and did view themselves in strong ethnocentric terms – forbidding intermarriage, for example, and forming ghettos. But, unlike Jews, only a few communities remain; whereas Jews maintained hundreds of self-segregated communities throughout the Diaspora. While there are some similarities, the Jewish case is greatly more exaggerated in terms of powerful ethnocentrism.

    The Chinese, who are ca. 3500 years old as a culture still exist, both in & out of China.

    Chinese have been the majority in their society for 3,500 years. Hence it does not address my point about failure to assimilate. And of course Chinese do not lack a strong ethnocentricity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    " and only a relatively small percentage remained Zoroastrians. Can the same be said of Jews? "

    I suppose so.
    ‘Jews. The essence and character of a people’, Arthur Herzberg and Aron Hirt-Manheimer, HarperSanFrancisco, 1998
    asserts, alas without argument or source, that just thirteen percent of those who could have remained jews chose to do this.

    A good example are the parents of Richard Feynman, only later in life he found out that his parents were, had been, jews.
    Jagdish Mehra, ‘The Beat of a Different Drum, The Life and Science of Richard Feynman’, Oxford 1994

    Klaus Hödl, ‘Als Bettler in die Leopoldstadt, Galizische Juden auf dem Weg nach Wien’, Wien, 1994
    writes that rabbis were against emigration, as many saw this as the way to escape the oppressive jewish society.

    J.G. Burg, Schuld und Schicksal, Europas Juden zwischen Henkern und Heuchlern, München, 1962
    describes how jews were more or less forced to emigration to Palestine after WWII.
    He had great trouble in escaping from Israel.

    Hjalmar Schacht, ´76 Jahre meines Lebens’, Bad Wörishofen, 1953
    flying back from India where he had give economic advice, Schacht's plane unexpectedly made a stopover in Tel Aviv.
    He had to leave the plane, and was recognized by German waiters, who said to him how they regretted having left Germany.
    Afterwards the Israeli government was furious that nobody had reported his presence, they would have arrested him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. CalDre says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Except for being an Austrian Jew? You mean, except for the fact that a quite ethnocentric Jew came up with that psycho-garbage, what do Jews have to do with it? That’s a good one!

    But, I have something besides the obvious. Freud’s id, ego and superego garbage is modeled on kabbalistic traditions. Sure Freud made some changes to the mystical underpinnings, but what good rabbi doesn’t adjust his message to the times? This underpinning led Carl Jung to exclaim: “a full understanding of the Jewish origins of psychoanalysis would carry us beyond Jewish Orthodoxy into the subterranean workings of Hasidism and then into the intricacies of the Kabbalah which still remain unexplored psychologically.” This article claims, consistent with some of MacDonald’s observations, that Freud handed psycho-garbage to Jung to (deceptively attempt to) remove the Jewish connection to it.
     
    This is worthless, a combination of antisemitism & Jewish ethnic projections. Do you really think that obscure & obscurantist articles amount to anything?

    Freud was clueless about Kabbalah, although one Jewish propagandist, David Bakan, tried to persuade the public that it was not so:
    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41rBG1LiI4L._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Psychoanalysis had been, before it became apparent that is was a sort of metaphysics, designed by its "founding father" as the true science of psychological functioning which will have been proven right by further discoveries in neurophysiology & brain research. Freud's goal was to become "Darwin of the mind", although his intellectual predecessors were more in the field of literature & philosophy (Sophocles, Shakespeare, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, ..) & his practice in Paris where he had been fascinated by hypnosis.

    This is real Freud, not a cartoon from conspiracy theories:

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51c6NToraTL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51tHt8uaB5L._SX347_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41uI8vLlIPL._SX333_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    and indispensable CC

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/418-zyt0JXL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    This is worthless, a combination of antisemitism & Jewish ethnic projections. Do you really think that obscure & obscurantist articles amount to anything?

    Blah, blah, blah, blah, ad hominem garbage from a freaking arsehole. As to obscurity, one was from a Kaballah website (gee, I wonder how that is relevant), another from a popular Jewish website (gee, I wonder how that is relevant), and another from an ADL luminary (gee, suddenly ADL is “obscure, is it?). I can give you more sources, for example, NYU, or is that also “obscure”? What qualifies as “not obscure”, does it have to be “mainstream” or it is false?

    Freud was clueless about Kabbalah

    Actually it is you who is clueless. I have provided numerous sources, including Jung, remarking on Freud’s intimate familiarity with Kabbalism. And at one point, as I was researching it, I compared the Kaballah teachings with Freud’s id/ego/superego and found them remarkably similar. So keep shouting about anti-Semitism and whatever else you want, it doesn’t change the facts.

    before it became apparent that is was a sort of metaphysics

    Oh, so it just miraculously “became apparent” that it was … mystical, i.e., Kabbalistic. Just by accident. Nothing to do with Freud being a Kabbalistic Jew. Hokey dokey, buddy.

    not a cartoon from conspiracy theories

    There’s no conspiracy theory, but you are again attempting to use a censorship tool reserved for freaking clueless arseholes. I guess you can’t help, what you are.

    And I’ve read Freud, and he is a charlatan idiot. Probably you want to fuck your mom while high on coke too, that is your issue, but do try to control yourself, will you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    ...at one point, as I was researching it, I compared the Kaballah teachings with Freud’s id/ego/superego and found them remarkably similar.
     
    And come to think of it: both are remarkably similar to Plato's theory of a tripartite soul

    Maybe Plato was an archaeo-crypto elder of zion!

    Shivveeerrzzzzz (internet: that was sarcasm)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    utu:

    Here's a recent paper by Curt Dunkel (one of the people actually referenced by Cofnas in his paper). If you just average the three studies, you get a Jewish IQ of 108, and a non-Jewish white of about 101, meaning they have a 7 point advantage (as do Agnostics, btw). If you weight the studies a bit more sensibly, it looks more like 6 points. Maybe 5. (The study that gives Jews the highest score, is a simple vocab test. The studies that give them lower scores test a bunch of different things.)

    It also studies Jewish personality. Interesting observation (to me): Jews are no more conscientious than Gentiles are. That almost surprised me a bit, as I would associate their culture of being known for studiousness with conscientiousness.

    Curt commented here on Unz (I assume it's the same Curt in the study, hehe).

    PS the second studies' (MIDUS II) results are not in the usual 100 mean 15 standard deviation form, but I include them below. You might observe that Agnostic/Athiests have *higher* IQs than Jews, in 2/3 studies. (Agnostics/Atheists are 20% of US population, according to what I read)

    MIDUS II:
    Jews 105.94
    Catholic 100.56
    Methodist 99.44
    Baptist 94.38
    Agnostic/Atheist 107.33

    The average IQ in Israel is 95.

    The average IQ in the UK is 100.

    Taking into account that the percentage of non-whites in the UK (~20%) is similar to the percentage of Palestinians in Israel, it looks like the UK whites are 5 IQ points smarter that the Israeli Jews.

    But maybe not. Let’s assume that the UK non-whites – coming from the World’s premier shit-holes and gestating in the soft underbelly of the UK welfare system – are actually 100 IQ achievers. Let’s assume that only the Palestinians are “dragging” the Jewish numbers. Well, if the Palestinians have an average IQ of 83.5 (Syria: 83, Jordan: 84) the Jews are still scoring only 98. So – not only are the Jews not smarter than everyone else – it looks like they’re lagging behind both East Asians and the whites.

    BTW, the IQ results above are coming from Richard Lynn – the guy who published “The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement” and started the “110 Ashkenazi IQ” ball rolling. It’s interesting that the 3 million Ashkenazi Jews in Israel couldn’t shine the way they were supposed to.

    The study that gives Jews the highest score, is a simple vocab test. The studies that give them lower scores test a bunch of different things.

    A vocab test, eh? That’s exactly what I would use to juice the numbers of a group that’s massively overrepresented in terms of Higher Education attendance. That’s not intelligence, but it’s useful when the Goyim start asking stupid questions about their place in the world. After all, only the smartest and the chosenest ones should run the ultra-high IQ sectors like the Western MSM, Hollywood, porn and politics.

    In other news: (((Harwey Weinstein))) is, apparently not a paragon of culture, like we were led to believe. He was thanked more times than God at the Academy Awards but it didn’t help. Let us hope that the only person in front of him, (((Steven Spielberg))), can make it all better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Richard Lynn – the guy who published “The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement” and started the “110 Ashkenazi IQ” ball rolling
     
    It is the shabbos goys who are doing the job of spreading the gospel of Jewish HBD supremacy: Lynn, Murray, Cochran, Sailer, Peterson with some help of Jews like Harris and Pinker. The meme is going mainstream and is there to help the masses understand that their masters are there because of immutable universal laws established by IQ sacred science and nothing can be done about it except to submit to masters. But masters are not cruel and let whites having some consolation with that their IQ is higher than that of blacks. The consoling goes 24/7 at VDare and iSteve with occasional reminding how smart our masters are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. utu says:
    @anonymous
    utu:

    Regarding data from this paper.
    I'm not a statistician in this space, and I didn't even notice how low the Project Talent standard deviations were. (All the PT SDs are about the same: around 8.5). Maybe Curt Dunkel, or someone more familiar with IQ statistics, could inform us. (would that imply that all these iqs are about almost twice these numbers? That wouldn't make sense.)

    PT IQ (SD)
    Jewish 106.71 (8.34)
    Catholic 102.93 (8.66)
    Protestant 103.99 (8.93)
    No religion 109.45 (8.83)


    Regarding the Midus II data, which looks like:

    MidusII IQ (SD)
    Jewish .36 (1.10)
    Catholic .04 (.94)
    Methodist .04 (.98)
    Baptist .36 (1.04)
    Agnostic/Atheist .47 (1.04)

    I may have been wrong, but I applied the formula:
    100 + .36 * (1.1 * 15), giving:
    105.94 for Jewish, etc.
    Catholic 100.56
    Methodist 99.44
    Baptist 94.38
    Agnostic/Atheist 107.33


    Hope I didn't do it wrong!

    (1) Not sure how you derived the scaling formula. Their scale seem to have mean 0 but what is its SD? In general IQ=100+(IQold-MEANold)*15/SDold

    (2) Project Talent SDs indicate that sample was trimmed in selection process. Probably the lower tail. But this would raise the mean. No discussion in the paper about it.

    (4) Here is frequency of Jews and Atheists & Agnostics populations in samples

    ADD
    Jews 0.94% (34)
    A&A 26.7%

    MIDUS
    Jews 5.1% (96)
    A&A 5.8%

    PT
    Jews 6.1% (6915)
    A&A 4.3%

    The first sample as far as Jews are concerned might be too small (n=34) so I would shelve it. The other two have higher Jewish percentage by about 2-3 factor to their population. Atheists and Agnostics in these two samples are comparable to Jewish size. I would not be surprised that Jewish suprematist HBD brigade would argue that A&A contain Jews who are A&A and this explains high IQ of the A&A group.

    Who is A&A group is a good question?

    (5) Accuracy? Differences between MINDUS and PT indicate that these are not statistical errors but bias. The tests must have been different. Catholics 100.56 and 102.92 respectively which gives 2.4 difference. For a sample of 1000 1SD random error should be less than 0.45=1000/sqrt(15). There is a bias between samples/tests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. utu says:
    @Anonymous
    The average IQ in Israel is 95.

    The average IQ in the UK is 100.

    Taking into account that the percentage of non-whites in the UK (~20%) is similar to the percentage of Palestinians in Israel, it looks like the UK whites are 5 IQ points smarter that the Israeli Jews.

    But maybe not. Let's assume that the UK non-whites - coming from the World's premier shit-holes and gestating in the soft underbelly of the UK welfare system - are actually 100 IQ achievers. Let's assume that only the Palestinians are "dragging" the Jewish numbers. Well, if the Palestinians have an average IQ of 83.5 (Syria: 83, Jordan: 84) the Jews are still scoring only 98. So - not only are the Jews not smarter than everyone else - it looks like they're lagging behind both East Asians and the whites.

    BTW, the IQ results above are coming from Richard Lynn - the guy who published "The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement" and started the "110 Ashkenazi IQ" ball rolling. It's interesting that the 3 million Ashkenazi Jews in Israel couldn't shine the way they were supposed to.

    The study that gives Jews the highest score, is a simple vocab test. The studies that give them lower scores test a bunch of different things.
     
    A vocab test, eh? That's exactly what I would use to juice the numbers of a group that's massively overrepresented in terms of Higher Education attendance. That's not intelligence, but it's useful when the Goyim start asking stupid questions about their place in the world. After all, only the smartest and the chosenest ones should run the ultra-high IQ sectors like the Western MSM, Hollywood, porn and politics.

    In other news: (((Harwey Weinstein))) is, apparently not a paragon of culture, like we were led to believe. He was thanked more times than God at the Academy Awards but it didn't help. Let us hope that the only person in front of him, (((Steven Spielberg))), can make it all better.

    Richard Lynn – the guy who published “The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement” and started the “110 Ashkenazi IQ” ball rolling

    It is the shabbos goys who are doing the job of spreading the gospel of Jewish HBD supremacy: Lynn, Murray, Cochran, Sailer, Peterson with some help of Jews like Harris and Pinker. The meme is going mainstream and is there to help the masses understand that their masters are there because of immutable universal laws established by IQ sacred science and nothing can be done about it except to submit to masters. But masters are not cruel and let whites having some consolation with that their IQ is higher than that of blacks. The consoling goes 24/7 at VDare and iSteve with occasional reminding how smart our masters are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    True. We can only hope that one of them (Kevin MacDonald, maybe) decides to purchase some mineral supplements and tackles this ridiculous propaganda.

    The Jews are only a tiny, 2% minority in the US, so even if we take the 110 (Ashkenazi) IQ claim at face value (lol) the US whites would outnumber them more than 15 to 1 in the number of 110+ IQ people. Gosh, Nathan Cofnas might not be so smart after all. His "default hypothesis" - a.k.a. "we're just that clever, goy" - can't explain anything. He needs to think bigger. I'd go with a 210 IQ number next time.
    , @phil
    "It is the shabbos goys who are doing the job of spreading the gospel of Jewish HBD supremacy: Lynn, Murray, Cochran, Sailer, Peterson..."

    Are you sure that Steve Sailer is a goy?
    , @phil
    "The meme is going mainstream and is there to help the masses understand that their masters are there because of immutable universal laws established by IQ sacred science and nothing can be done about it except to submit to masters."

    This is, of course, irresponsible rhetoric. The point is simply that, on average, blacks are less intelligent and are therefore likely earn less than other major racial groups. It is now generally accepted amongst labor economists--Roland Fryer is a good example--that a lack of cognitive ability is the #1 factor causing the earnings of blacks to languish. Fryer has occasionally fallen for "Harlem education miracles" and the like, and James Heckman has looked to comprehensive pre-school education to close "the gap", but the gap remains. "IQ theories," like other theories, are never really proven. They just haven't been convincingly falsified, at least for the time being. No one really knows where average black genotypic IQ lies. Heiner Rindermann's recent estimate is 93.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    But masters are not cruel and let whites having some consolation with that their IQ is higher than that of blacks.
     
    A consolation prize! Gosh darn it! How positively white of them!

    Say, I was wondering. Easter is nearly upon us and we are awaiting the arrival of the Easter Bunny. Santa Claus comes at Christmastime.

    So what time of the year does the IQ Fairy make her rounds?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Wally says:
    @iffen
    I think it deserves to be reposted here.

    Where would the world be if compulsive copy and pasters didn't think that their copied material shouldn't be pasted as many times and in as many places as possible?

    IOW, you cannot refute what he posted . LOL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. The doctrine of evolutionary selection does not seem reliable, for Jews or anyone else. There exist genes for the intelligence of Hawking, the eyesight of Ted Williams, the strength, agility, and endurance of Mohamed Ali. These have not becomes common in the population, and indeed seem no more so than in classical antiquity. Either these traits do not contribute to fitness, or something is wrong with the whole enterprise. No? Which would make theories of evolutionary strategies—does evolution have strategies?–somewhat questionable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Fred, I think you off the usual beam wrt evolution snd natural selection but I was already looking for somewhere to express my puzzlement over Kevin McDonald's interesting research having nothing about DNA and actual gene studies as far as I know so I have sympathy for the drift of your comment.

    Still I think you are in error in ignoring the logic which tells you that a number of genetic mutations become fixed and the alleles quite common because they improve fitness but that the combinations plus epigenetic factors and environmental contributions that produce thr Hawking or Williams or Muhammad Ali talents are rare. That doesn't mean that the genes/alleles in question haven't been selected because, in the relevant rnvironmental niche, they improved fitness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Mulegino1 says:

    Widespread “Jew awareness” is an absolutely healthy immunological element of a culture or society, particularly in Eurasia and the Americas. This does not imply anything like irrational hatred or a blanket condemnation of all, or even most Jews. It is merely a recognition of the historically verifiable fact that whenever the influence of the Jews reaches anything like critical mass, decline, decay, impoverishment, corruption and collapse are usually inevitable.

    Today, EU and US officialdom are in absolute thralldom to the kosher editorial control of the mass media, which is overwhelmingly in the hands of Jews. Who can dispute this? When was the last time a Senator or member of Congress made even a mention of Jewish influence and survived in a political sense? When was the last time any prominent public official in the US acknowledged that the relationship between the US and Israel was a lopsided and parasitical one and managed to keep their job? When was the last time any major figure in the media or on the national political scene mentioned the overwhelming and toxic influence of Jews on their host culture via their control of Hollywood and the entertainment industry?

    The professional “anti-anti-Semites” are simply canaries in the deep hole of public awareness. Unlike the real canaries, whose purpose is to protect the miners from deadly fumes, their job is precisely the opposite- to protect themselves and their own collective from the public receiving a whiff of oxygenated truth.

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. Liza says:
    @Vinteuil
    So who do you think lovers of the violin repertoire should have been listening to, instead of Joseph Joachim, Fritz Kreisler, Josef Szigeti, Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin, David Oistrakh, Itzhak Perlman - &c.?

    Lovers of the violin can listen to anyone they like, I do not say otherwise. For everyone on your list there’s probably a dozen of the nonjewish variety who was never promoted and publicized to the same degree, though there are several. Also, most famous does not necessarily equal the best in any field of music.

    I have attended concerts where the concertmaster was every bit as competent as any solo star but for some reason you have never heard of them. I have attended music competitions where the losers were better than the winner.

    Read up on how difficult it was for Zino Francescatti (whose concerts I’ve attended a few times) to get a job as a soloist.

    Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why there are so many rich, highly successful rap “stars”? Is this “music” worthy in your eyes? Can you grasp the idea of heavy promotion?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Ron Unz says:

    Well, the dueling Cofnas and MacDonald articles total about 30,000 words and since I’m busy with my own software work, I haven’t read any of it. But glancing over some of the huge outpouring of comments, it looks like one important issue under debate is the question of Jewish IQ.

    A few years back, I published numerous articles and columns rather exhaustively dealing with exactly this contentious topic, along with IQ in general, and at least in my own mind, rather conclusively resolved important aspects of the puzzle. Since my writings generated enormous discussion at the time, including in the elite MSM, and this is my own website, where some of those articles have been prominently featured, one would think that most readers are aware of them. But I doubt that’s the case, so here are a few of the more important links:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/race-iq-and-wealth/

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    http://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/race-iq/?ItemOrder=ASC

    http://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/#the-strange-collapse-of-jewish-academic-achievement

    http://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/meritocracy/?ItemOrder=ASC

    Apparently, there’s also some nitwit YouTube celebrity named Jordan Peterson ignorantly spouting off on this issue, seemingly without having done any serious investigation, so perhaps now is a good opportunity for trying to correct the public record regarding these important facts.

    And since this is my own website, I’ve taken the extreme liberty of duplicating this comment on both threads.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks Ron. I am not sure I have read all those linked articles though I often cite some.

    As I mentioned in reply to Fred Reed's #23, I think, despite his usual curmudgeonly attitude to Darwinian selection, he is hanging on to the right tram wrt doubting the biology undetlying Kevin McDonald's use of "Evolutionary". But....

    Could there be a meme rather than gene version that gets over the absence of DNA from McDonald's research (as I understand it perhaps from insufficient knowledge of his opus)? I have just looked up "meme" in Wikipedia and suspect that there is a demolition job waiting to be done by you when you can make time. Any chance?

    , @John Gruskos
    Most of the commenters, both pro-MacDonald and anti-MacDonald, seem to agree that average IQ varies from people group to people group.

    The big disagreement is about whether ethnocentrism varies from people group to people group.

    The pro-MacDonald commenters say yes, ethnocentrism does vary from people group to people group, and Jews are one of the most ethnocentric people groups, while North European peoples tend to be among the least ethnocentric peoples.

    Most provocatively, the pro-MacDonald commenters insist that it is these differences in ethnocentrism, rather than differences in IQ, which explain Jewish over-representation in certain notorious groups - Bolsheviks, organized crime, white collar crime, "modern art", spies (Rosenbergs, Pollard) and their apologists, open borders activists, pornographers, welfare fraud, Hollywood, sexual revolution, opposition to Christianity in the public sphere, belligerent Russophobes, and the pseudo-scientific intellectual movements reviewed in Culture of Critique (Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychology, Frankfurt School sociology, etc.) - all explained by the particularistic (rather than universalistic) morality associated with high ethnocentrism: "Is it good for the Jews?", not "Is it good?"

    To my reading, the information presented in Ron Unz's Myth of American Meritocracy supports the pro-MacDonald view.

    To summarize bluntly, here are how various groups are represented in admissions to elite academia:

    Blacks, Hispanics - fairly represented with respect to share of population, over represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    Asians - over represented with respect to share of population, fairly represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    Jews - over represented with respect to share of population, and also over represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    White Gentiles - under represented with respect to share of population, and also under represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    This is exactly what MacDonald's theory of ethnocentrism would predict.

    Groups with medium ethnocentrism (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians) are able to ensure fair representation with respect to whichever metric is most favorable to their group.

    Groups with high ethnocentrism (Jews) are able to ensure over representation with respect to all metrics.

    Groups with low ethnocentrism (White Gentiles) are unable to ensure fair representation by any metric.

    , @anonomy
    OH WOW, Are you going to do the Jordan Peterson Personality Assessment Test? I seen one fella got a 100% Asshole.
    Is that all it takes, just go out and say "I'm not PC", and insta fame on YouTube.
    Who has your data. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @CalDre

    Zoroastrians, older religionists than Jews, still exist too
     
    True, it is one of the exceptions. I don't know that much about the roughly 200,000 contemporary adherents, but what is obvious is that the vast majority of Persians converted to Islam, and only a relatively small percentage remained Zoroastrians. Can the same be said of Jews? Also the Parsis do and did view themselves in strong ethnocentric terms - forbidding intermarriage, for example, and forming ghettos. But, unlike Jews, only a few communities remain; whereas Jews maintained hundreds of self-segregated communities throughout the Diaspora. While there are some similarities, the Jewish case is greatly more exaggerated in terms of powerful ethnocentrism.

    The Chinese, who are ca. 3500 years old as a culture still exist, both in & out of China.
     
    Chinese have been the majority in their society for 3,500 years. Hence it does not address my point about failure to assimilate. And of course Chinese do not lack a strong ethnocentricity.

    ” and only a relatively small percentage remained Zoroastrians. Can the same be said of Jews? ”

    I suppose so.
    ‘Jews. The essence and character of a people’, Arthur Herzberg and Aron Hirt-Manheimer, HarperSanFrancisco, 1998
    asserts, alas without argument or source, that just thirteen percent of those who could have remained jews chose to do this.

    A good example are the parents of Richard Feynman, only later in life he found out that his parents were, had been, jews.
    Jagdish Mehra, ‘The Beat of a Different Drum, The Life and Science of Richard Feynman’, Oxford 1994

    Klaus Hödl, ‘Als Bettler in die Leopoldstadt, Galizische Juden auf dem Weg nach Wien’, Wien, 1994
    writes that rabbis were against emigration, as many saw this as the way to escape the oppressive jewish society.

    J.G. Burg, Schuld und Schicksal, Europas Juden zwischen Henkern und Heuchlern, München, 1962
    describes how jews were more or less forced to emigration to Palestine after WWII.
    He had great trouble in escaping from Israel.

    Hjalmar Schacht, ´76 Jahre meines Lebens’, Bad Wörishofen, 1953
    flying back from India where he had give economic advice, Schacht’s plane unexpectedly made a stopover in Tel Aviv.
    He had to leave the plane, and was recognized by German waiters, who said to him how they regretted having left Germany.
    Afterwards the Israeli government was furious that nobody had reported his presence, they would have arrested him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @anonomy
    The Jews aren't the people displacing the whites and whites seem quite happy to have themselves displaced. Along with the fact that no one is allowed to move themselves away from anyone who wishes to be next to them, no freedom of movement or associations. The majority of Jews are atheists but ride the tide of God's chosen even though they don't believe in God. Obviously God must be a white Goy. They will be displaced too based on how small their population is already, they will probably go Asian rather than African, all in due time, you know, "you reap what you sow",
    Jews and Christians have never gotten along, but good propaganda and public relations after WWII saw a change in how people thought. I can't imagine how many times they had to rewrite the bible, must have been exhausting. For all their intelligence, they wrote the test, they really aren't any smarter.

    ” Jews and Christians have never gotten along, ”

    For me it is pretty probable that christianity was created by Paul, as secret agent of the Roman king, to destroy the jewish culture, after two large armies had destroyed jewry politically.
    Christianity was aimed at jews, a far more easy religion.
    This also explains that the bible begins with the jewish Torah.
    Alas propaganda often backfires, christianity destroyed the Roman empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonomy
    No.
    Why Jesus was kicking over the tables of the money lenders way before anyone was a "Christian", and their children conscripted for war while the money lenders, ancestors of Mamnet, played with the accounts of Kings, based on their professed chosen-ness, by God. Just what I heard, a sparrow told me. ha ha
    , @Anon
    I scratch my head. Have you gone off your rocker? Or is this a very perverse kind of trolling? Are we finally to wake up to the real "jille dyxtra" phenomenon?

    Just two simple points You must know that there hadn't been a Roman king for hundreds of years. And where was there evidence of Jewish communities outside Palestine which were sufficiently troublesome to the religiously tolerant Roman state that they had to be disrupted?

    BTW what do you think Paul's dates were? After all those "two large armies" were decades, even generations, apart, were they not?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @edward smith
    'I had to post this, addressed to their apparent chieftain:

    “By mixing your crazy shit into legitimate, truthful criticism of Jewish influence, acts and utterances, you are poisoning the whole kettle of soup. You are doing for it what the “Jews won’t replace us” crowd did for the white cause in Charlottesville. You could not be more effective if you were a Black Ops unit of ZOA or ADL– and perhaps that’s what you are. Go elsewhere, Nazi or false flag Nazi scum. It’s a free country, you can wear svastika armbands, you can hold your own demonstrations, but don’t sabotage it for the rest of us.”'

    Yup.Ok.Excellent. Just as Lot has been trying to do in another part of the comments you are keen to taint Macdonald and his work by association. What the genius wannabe gatekeepers of this comment section have forgotten to take into account however is that *Macdonald's critique has been around for 20 years*. Where were all of these concerned observers/concern trolls during the two decades Macdonald had to build up his influence, add to his trilogy, start two online journals and become a major factor in alternative politics/ culture.

    Its almost like ignoring him didnt work so now he must be anathematised for the good of the anti-immigration movement-after 20 years!

    Lol

    you guys can do better than this.

    “you guys can do better than this.”

    No, they can’t. Max has tried here a few times and always bogs down in 500+ word comments where a single sentence would better state what he’s trying to say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Lot says:
    @Amasius
    The man with the world's highest IQ is a bar bouncer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7BhXlMm_8

    I don't think he's jewish, either! Must be faking it!

    The man with the second highest IQ, possibly the highest, writes for television and stayed in high school for ten years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=lcDfoo76dKY

    But he is jewish, so we know his IQ score is the real deal at least.

    This goy retard didn't even go to college:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen

    Lancaster, PA's Brad Rutter went to.... Johns Hopkins PFFFFFFFFT and dropped out LOL PFFFFFFT

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIJGX5riedQ

    Clearly only won 4.5 million dollars on jeopardy because the goy writers were feeding him the answers. Same goes for Ken "Brigham Young PFFFFT" Jennings and his 74-game run.

    Imagine if any of these guys had to go against someone who went to Princeton in their respective disciplines.

    There are lots of people who proclaim they have the highest IQ in the world. Doesn’t mean it is true.

    BYU is the single best college in a huge region. It is not comparable to UConn or CSULB.

    You all seem to confuse general rules (groundbreaking research doesn’t come out of professors at places like Cal State Long Beach) with “Every smart person goes to a top college” which is obviously false and not something I said or implied.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Amasius

    groundbreaking research doesn’t come out of professors at places like Cal State Long Beach
     
    But there's no reason it can't and it did. Just like there's no reason an off-beat man who played jazz piano and taught high school in Jamaica can't be brilliant and produce a great and groundbreaking work of scholarship. He is and he did. I would in fact argue that it's precisely these sort of off-the-beaten-trail types who have the best shot at being true geniuses, not some smug conformist clique-ist in the Ivy League.
    , @CalDre
    What a loser attempt to discredit ideas via snobbery. Are you fucking for real? It's hard for me to comprehend someone could be such an utter condescending snob to close his mind to the idea that .... Wait, that's not what you're doing, you're just a mouthpiece for the ruling class and your actual stupid fucking pathetic view point is, "if the idea is not sanctioned by the ruling class, it has no value".

    My God is that pathetic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Liza
    @Bardon. About the overrepresentation of jewz as violin virtuosi. A nonjew, nonasian, ie, a white person, could play like Paganini himself, but whether we know of such a person or not depends on who owns and runs the recording companies, and who is heavily influential in the symphony orchestras and so on. And that is one reason why there appear to be an outlandish number of jews playing classical violin and other classical instruments. In any case, their playing of western music on western instruments is a serious case of cultural appropriation.

    ” In any case, their playing of western music on western instruments is a serious case of cultural appropriation.”

    Maybe not. They are almost all of European descent without a trace of Semitic ancestry. That was a funny dig you made, though. ;-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Max Denken
    You are foaming at the mouth as you people usually do. I have no time for this level of discourse. Until you and yours sober up, you have forfeited the legitimacy of the JQ issues you care about, some of which are valid, important and worthy of a wide public debate. You do not serve your cause well.

    That is so typical of you, Max. When you find a person’s comment unanswerable, you accuse him of foaming at the mouth. Now you get to stomp away in a huff, trailing your little blankie and sucking madly at your little binkie.

    That infantile tactic is the only one you have once your pretense of erudition is exposed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Wally says:
    @anon
    Nathan,

    6/8 of Sweden's largest "morning" and "evening" newspapers are owned by families with significant Jewish heritage (Hjorne and Bonnier). The other 2/8 by "foreign banks."

    See these comments:
    comment 1
    comment 2
    comment 3
    It doesn't require an "ad hoc" explanation to understand how Jewish families have tremendous influence in Sweden despite their small numbers*: “How is it that your royal family is as powerful as my royal family, when my royal family has twice as many members? Incon-theivable!”

    Also, are Germans maybe stricken by Holocaust guilt?

    * * *

    Cofnas, I've been trying to find good *primary* sources on Ashkenazi IQ and I'm having a hard time. The sources I have found give estimates all over the map. Maybe you are familiar with such sources, esp., since Jewish intelligence is referenced in your paper.

    See, for example, this table. The studies with the largest sample sizes are Backman and Shuey (1236 and 764) and the IQ scores listed are 107.8 and "1.2 below the white mean."**
    Also, this blogger estimated the Jewish IQ to be 102
    by averaging a set of scores. You could argue that they should have been weighted and summed differently, but it begs the questions: how and why? Also, is this comment true?: “I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools.” I often see the number 115 quoted for Ashkenazi IQ. I wonder where 115 is coming from? Perhaps a cherry picking of the highest-end estimate.

    And, if the Jewish IQ advantage were genetic in origin, why does the only data we have on Jewish brain size, discussed by Maurice Fishberg, suggest that their brains are smaller than white Gentile brains by 2 cubic inches? You could note that Cochran provides evidence of heterozygote advantage for Tay-Sachs-like diseases, but the Irish also have a high rate of Tay-Sachs. Are they known for their high IQs?

    * Jews are less than 0.5% of Sweden's population
    ** The highest score is actually an estimate by MacDonald (117), but he also says that he defers to Lynn on this data, and I believe Lynn's estimate to currently be around 111, but I don't know how he came to that number, because I don't have his raw data.

    “Also, are Germans maybe stricken by Holocaust guilt?”

    But they shouldn’t be. There was no ’6M Jews’ except in the sick minds of dishonest Jews …. from at least 1823.

    Jews have been marketing the ’6,000,000′ lie since at least 1823:

    https://imgur.com/a/0LFFF

    and:
    http://balder.org/judea/New-York-Times-Six-Million-Jews-Since-1869.php
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @jilles dykstra
    Freud was of course right about the subconscious, what w're conscious of is a very small part of what goes on in our head.
    Our head is, seen in evolution, a weird collection of very old, old and new parts, often in conflict with one another.
    His great accomplishment was to regard those at the time seen as just crazy or so as human beings with with an illness.
    Very few people still believe in psychoanalysis as an effective therapy.
    His followers I knew in the Netherlands reminded me of a religious sect.
    What Freud did not know, could not know, is how in our head chemo electrical processes determine our thoughts, deepest feelings, of which we most of the time are not aware.
    The conscious I see as a means to check outcomes, on consistency, fitting into society, etc.
    Had Freud been alive, he would be flabbergasted to see how small quantities of chemicals can change our thoughts.

    “Had Freud been alive, he would be flabbergasted to see how small quantities of chemicals can change our thoughts.”

    I think that Freud was aware of chemical influence on the mind. He promoted cocaine use for his “patients”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Wally says:
    @Max Denken
    Thank you. I didn't like Auster's personality, but so what? He was the American Socrates; opened more American eyes in the special, pithy way of his than anyone else I can think of. Of course, written off by the Streicher-Yockey-Weber-Linder-MacDonald-Sunic crowd because of his tainted DNA.

    Among many others, I've published a total of 5 essays with some comments about Jews, always negative but carefully and judiciously so. In each case I disclosed, to be fair, that I am part Jewish and that my parents were victims of the Holocausts (pl). You have no idea what stream of insult and obloquy outpoured in the comments section of each of those, usually of the sort that I am a joojoojoo doing PR work for the joos and my jooing won't joo the white people. These keepers of the purity of the race are such morons that they are several levels below Adolf himself. As as a mischlinge and a born Catholic, I'd qualify enough as a German to be drafted to the 3rd Reich Wehrmacht, but for these people my arguments are tainted because I am a joo. I must say, my respect for his intellect notwithstanding, that Dr. MacDonald has resorted to this kind of blanket dismissal of blood-tainted critics in probably more than Pinker, Auster, and one other case I know of.

    said:
    “my parents were victims of the Holocausts”

    Really? Then show us the proof.

    This should be good.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. joe webb says:

    so much yakkity -yak about IQ. How high an IQ does one have to possess to learn how to tie one’s shoelaces?

    Figuring out the jews requires a few more IQ points than learning to tie one’s shoes, granted.

    What I keep on going on about is the religious factor, which nobody wants to address. Now maybe that takes higher IQ than figuring out the jews . Elementary but the bias of secular intellectuals is to overlook the religious.

    Jews are the foundation of Christianity and are our sacred cows…go to any church and see what the readings are…always from both OT and NT. Does the rabbi read from the NT….?

    Trump can reverse himself and hire Bolton, etc. Trump is the newest member of the neocons, and the jews win again. Impeach Trump

    Hello?

    Read More
    • Replies: @redmudhooch
    "so much yakkity -yak about IQ."

    Agreed, this makes my little gentile brain hurt...
    Anyone know Macdonald and Nehlans stance on a real 9/11 investigation?
    Doesn't take a genius to know that the official version is a lie, the truth covered up by our hero Mueller... original 9/11 commission members have said investigation was a sham, set up to fail.
    I've looked and haven't found the answer. This is a question we should be asking all candidates.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. anonomy says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " Jews and Christians have never gotten along, "

    For me it is pretty probable that christianity was created by Paul, as secret agent of the Roman king, to destroy the jewish culture, after two large armies had destroyed jewry politically.
    Christianity was aimed at jews, a far more easy religion.
    This also explains that the bible begins with the jewish Torah.
    Alas propaganda often backfires, christianity destroyed the Roman empire.

    No.
    Why Jesus was kicking over the tables of the money lenders way before anyone was a “Christian”, and their children conscripted for war while the money lenders, ancestors of Mamnet, played with the accounts of Kings, based on their professed chosen-ness, by God. Just what I heard, a sparrow told me. ha ha

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @geokat62
    I originally posted this comment under the Cofnas thread. I think it deserves to be reposted here.

    ———————————

    Came across this terrific, but lengthy, interview by Luke Ford (someone with an Anglo-Saxon background who converted to Orthodox Judaism) of both Prof. Kevin MacDonald and PhD candidate Nathan Confas, the co-author of this article.

    https://youtu.be/ARhqt38bMZA

    Given the length of the video, I decided to transcribe what I consider to be the most interesting segment of the exchange between Ford and Confas, which begins at 20:40:33:

    Luke Ford – Is anti-Jewish sentiment always irrational?

    Nathan Cofnas – Ah (very long pause) in that general sense, I would say “no.” But a big deal of anti-Jewish sentiment is irrational.

    Luke Ford – Oh, for example, every major American Jewish organization promotes immigration amnesty. They want the 20 to 30 million people in this country here illegally – now, generally low IQ types – who are here in this country illegally, they want to grant them amnesty. And when they make their arguments, they never talk about what’s good for America. They talk about you know these lofty, philosophical, moral things. And so I see all the major Jewish organizations, and that includes the Orthodox Union and the Agudath Israel, they are trying to fill my bedroom with poisonous snakes. And so how do I feel about people who try to fill my bedroom with poisonous snakes? I don’t bother about differentiating, I just hate these organizations, and I hate the people who run them, and it’s just like passionate.. and I’m Jewish. So, what is the non-Jew going to think when they see every major American Jewish organization, you know, try to inject poison into the American bloodstream?

    Nathan Cofnas – That’s why, as I’ve argued publicly, I think organizations like the ADL are very bad for the Jews in that they are causing much more antisemitism then they’re preventing. In fact, I think they do nothing to prevent antisemitism, at all. I understand why people resent these organizations and why they might blame Jews. Because these organizations themselves pretend to speak on behalf of the Jewish community. So, a non-Jew could take them at their word and say “ok, you represent the Jewish community and you’re advocating something unreasonable”… and, maybe, Jews are unreasonable.

    Luke Ford – How much responsibility do ordinary Jews have that their leaders are hell bent by injecting poison into the American bloodstream?

    Nathan Cofnas – That’s an interesting ethical question. What kind of responsibility does a community have for collective action, the actions of its leaders? I think the Jewish community does have some responsibility to push back against these self-appointed leaders in a more public and aggressive way than we have. I think, insofar as we can be held collectively responsible for our actions, I think Jews have made mistakes in these areas.
     
    While this is pretty consistent with what I’ve been saying for quite some time, it’s refreshing to see someone from the Jewish community who is honest enough to admit this. Could you imagine our resident maven ever admitting to something like this? I couldn’t.

    Forgive me if I’am being dim or lazy but who is “our resident maven”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Amasius says:
    @Lot
    There are lots of people who proclaim they have the highest IQ in the world. Doesn't mean it is true.

    BYU is the single best college in a huge region. It is not comparable to UConn or CSULB.

    You all seem to confuse general rules (groundbreaking research doesn't come out of professors at places like Cal State Long Beach) with "Every smart person goes to a top college" which is obviously false and not something I said or implied.

    groundbreaking research doesn’t come out of professors at places like Cal State Long Beach

    But there’s no reason it can’t and it did. Just like there’s no reason an off-beat man who played jazz piano and taught high school in Jamaica can’t be brilliant and produce a great and groundbreaking work of scholarship. He is and he did. I would in fact argue that it’s precisely these sort of off-the-beaten-trail types who have the best shot at being true geniuses, not some smug conformist clique-ist in the Ivy League.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Frederick V. Reed
    The doctrine of evolutionary selection does not seem reliable, for Jews or anyone else. There exist genes for the intelligence of Hawking, the eyesight of Ted Williams, the strength, agility, and endurance of Mohamed Ali. These have not becomes common in the population, and indeed seem no more so than in classical antiquity. Either these traits do not contribute to fitness, or something is wrong with the whole enterprise. No? Which would make theories of evolutionary strategies—does evolution have strategies?--somewhat questionable.

    Fred, I think you off the usual beam wrt evolution snd natural selection but I was already looking for somewhere to express my puzzlement over Kevin McDonald’s interesting research having nothing about DNA and actual gene studies as far as I know so I have sympathy for the drift of your comment.

    Still I think you are in error in ignoring the logic which tells you that a number of genetic mutations become fixed and the alleles quite common because they improve fitness but that the combinations plus epigenetic factors and environmental contributions that produce thr Hawking or Williams or Muhammad Ali talents are rare. That doesn’t mean that the genes/alleles in question haven’t been selected because, in the relevant rnvironmental niche, they improved fitness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Wade says:

    [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).]

    This statement clarifies why having a majority of Jews being supportive of an ideology isn’t necessarily at issue one way or another. Before the Balfour Declaration and the defeat of the Germany/Ottoman Turks in WWI only a very small minority of Jews necessarily would’ve been privy to any back door dealings of men like Louis Brandeis who privately betrayed the interests of his nation and drug the USA into the war on Britain’s side. A majority of Jews necessarily weren’t zionists at this point.

    The point is that the World Zionist Organization understood well that once their plans had come to fruition with the destruction of Germany and the Turks, a great many Jews would repatriate and their comrades around the world would approve and be very supportive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  143. @Ron Unz
    Well, the dueling Cofnas and MacDonald articles total about 30,000 words and since I'm busy with my own software work, I haven't read any of it. But glancing over some of the huge outpouring of comments, it looks like one important issue under debate is the question of Jewish IQ.

    A few years back, I published numerous articles and columns rather exhaustively dealing with exactly this contentious topic, along with IQ in general, and at least in my own mind, rather conclusively resolved important aspects of the puzzle. Since my writings generated enormous discussion at the time, including in the elite MSM, and this is my own website, where some of those articles have been prominently featured, one would think that most readers are aware of them. But I doubt that's the case, so here are a few of the more important links:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/race-iq-and-wealth/

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    http://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/race-iq/?ItemOrder=ASC

    http://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/#the-strange-collapse-of-jewish-academic-achievement

    http://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/meritocracy/?ItemOrder=ASC

    Apparently, there's also some nitwit YouTube celebrity named Jordan Peterson ignorantly spouting off on this issue, seemingly without having done any serious investigation, so perhaps now is a good opportunity for trying to correct the public record regarding these important facts.

    And since this is my own website, I've taken the extreme liberty of duplicating this comment on both threads.

    Thanks Ron. I am not sure I have read all those linked articles though I often cite some.

    As I mentioned in reply to Fred Reed’s #23, I think, despite his usual curmudgeonly attitude to Darwinian selection, he is hanging on to the right tram wrt doubting the biology undetlying Kevin McDonald’s use of “Evolutionary”. But….

    Could there be a meme rather than gene version that gets over the absence of DNA from McDonald’s research (as I understand it perhaps from insufficient knowledge of his opus)? I have just looked up “meme” in Wikipedia and suspect that there is a demolition job waiting to be done by you when you can make time. Any chance?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Ron Unz
    Well, the dueling Cofnas and MacDonald articles total about 30,000 words and since I'm busy with my own software work, I haven't read any of it. But glancing over some of the huge outpouring of comments, it looks like one important issue under debate is the question of Jewish IQ.

    A few years back, I published numerous articles and columns rather exhaustively dealing with exactly this contentious topic, along with IQ in general, and at least in my own mind, rather conclusively resolved important aspects of the puzzle. Since my writings generated enormous discussion at the time, including in the elite MSM, and this is my own website, where some of those articles have been prominently featured, one would think that most readers are aware of them. But I doubt that's the case, so here are a few of the more important links:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/race-iq-and-wealth/

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    http://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/race-iq/?ItemOrder=ASC

    http://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/#the-strange-collapse-of-jewish-academic-achievement

    http://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/meritocracy/?ItemOrder=ASC

    Apparently, there's also some nitwit YouTube celebrity named Jordan Peterson ignorantly spouting off on this issue, seemingly without having done any serious investigation, so perhaps now is a good opportunity for trying to correct the public record regarding these important facts.

    And since this is my own website, I've taken the extreme liberty of duplicating this comment on both threads.

    Most of the commenters, both pro-MacDonald and anti-MacDonald, seem to agree that average IQ varies from people group to people group.

    The big disagreement is about whether ethnocentrism varies from people group to people group.

    The pro-MacDonald commenters say yes, ethnocentrism does vary from people group to people group, and Jews are one of the most ethnocentric people groups, while North European peoples tend to be among the least ethnocentric peoples.

    Most provocatively, the pro-MacDonald commenters insist that it is these differences in ethnocentrism, rather than differences in IQ, which explain Jewish over-representation in certain notorious groups – Bolsheviks, organized crime, white collar crime, “modern art”, spies (Rosenbergs, Pollard) and their apologists, open borders activists, pornographers, welfare fraud, Hollywood, sexual revolution, opposition to Christianity in the public sphere, belligerent Russophobes, and the pseudo-scientific intellectual movements reviewed in Culture of Critique (Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychology, Frankfurt School sociology, etc.) – all explained by the particularistic (rather than universalistic) morality associated with high ethnocentrism: “Is it good for the Jews?”, not “Is it good?”

    To my reading, the information presented in Ron Unz’s Myth of American Meritocracy supports the pro-MacDonald view.

    To summarize bluntly, here are how various groups are represented in admissions to elite academia:

    Blacks, Hispanics – fairly represented with respect to share of population, over represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    Asians – over represented with respect to share of population, fairly represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    Jews – over represented with respect to share of population, and also over represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    White Gentiles – under represented with respect to share of population, and also under represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    This is exactly what MacDonald’s theory of ethnocentrism would predict.

    Groups with medium ethnocentrism (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians) are able to ensure fair representation with respect to whichever metric is most favorable to their group.

    Groups with high ethnocentrism (Jews) are able to ensure over representation with respect to all metrics.

    Groups with low ethnocentrism (White Gentiles) are unable to ensure fair representation by any metric.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frankie P
    "Asians – over represented with respect to share of population, fairly represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ"

    Perhaps fairly represented with respect to IQ, but certainly not fairly represented with respect to academic achievement as manifested by high school academics and SAT scores.

    And yes, I agree with the argument that student excellence depends on other factors in which Asians are notoriously weak: social interaction, teamwork and team building, creative problem solving, etc.
    , @annamaria
    "Most provocatively, the pro-MacDonald commenters insist that it is these differences in ethnocentrism, rather than differences in IQ, which explain Jewish over-representation in certain notorious groups – Bolsheviks, organized crime, white collar crime, “modern art”, spies (Rosenbergs, Pollard) and their apologists, open borders activists, pornographers, welfare fraud, Hollywood, sexual revolution, opposition to Christianity in the public sphere, belligerent Russophobes, and the pseudo-scientific intellectual movements reviewed in Culture of Critique (Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychology, Frankfurt School sociology, etc.) – all explained by the particularistic (rather than universalistic) morality associated with high ethnocentrism: “Is it good for the Jews?”, not “Is it good?”
    ---Agree. The question of Jewish ethnocentrism goes into the heart of moral values. “Is it good?" Interesting that the accomplished Mr. Cofnas has studiously avoided this aspect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @CalDre

    This is worthless, a combination of antisemitism & Jewish ethnic projections. Do you really think that obscure & obscurantist articles amount to anything?
     
    Blah, blah, blah, blah, ad hominem garbage from a freaking arsehole. As to obscurity, one was from a Kaballah website (gee, I wonder how that is relevant), another from a popular Jewish website (gee, I wonder how that is relevant), and another from an ADL luminary (gee, suddenly ADL is "obscure, is it?). I can give you more sources, for example, NYU, or is that also "obscure"? What qualifies as "not obscure", does it have to be "mainstream" or it is false?

    Freud was clueless about Kabbalah
     
    Actually it is you who is clueless. I have provided numerous sources, including Jung, remarking on Freud's intimate familiarity with Kabbalism. And at one point, as I was researching it, I compared the Kaballah teachings with Freud's id/ego/superego and found them remarkably similar. So keep shouting about anti-Semitism and whatever else you want, it doesn't change the facts.

    before it became apparent that is was a sort of metaphysics
     
    Oh, so it just miraculously "became apparent" that it was ... mystical, i.e., Kabbalistic. Just by accident. Nothing to do with Freud being a Kabbalistic Jew. Hokey dokey, buddy.

    not a cartoon from conspiracy theories
     
    There's no conspiracy theory, but you are again attempting to use a censorship tool reserved for freaking clueless arseholes. I guess you can't help, what you are.

    And I've read Freud, and he is a charlatan idiot. Probably you want to fuck your mom while high on coke too, that is your issue, but do try to control yourself, will you?

    …at one point, as I was researching it, I compared the Kaballah teachings with Freud’s id/ego/superego and found them remarkably similar.

    And come to think of it: both are remarkably similar to Plato’s theory of a tripartite soul

    Maybe Plato was an archaeo-crypto elder of zion!

    Shivveeerrzzzzz (internet: that was sarcasm)

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Actually AFAIK it is believed, without contradiction, that Saadiah, Maimonides and, in particular, the Zoha, were all influenced by Plato's tripartite soul (in Hebrew, nefesh (appetite, desire), ruah (spirit), and neshamah (reason)).

    My point, in context of where I made it back in the thread, was simply that Freud's Jewishness profoundly influenced his work - as his influence came through the Zoha (Kabbalism), not Platonic philosophy. And not just in that regard, but in general, due to Jews' profound hatred of and contempt for Christianity, Jewish intellectuals , particularly in the Frankfurt School but elsewhere too, worked feverishly to undermine Christianity and its principles and the corresponding "White identity" which had formed around it.

    That to me is why Freud's Jewishness is a remarkable part of the story. Because his theories were utter fucking filthy garbage and he was a pathetic and filthy pervert. But he became famous precisely because his perversity undermined Christianity. If one day you sit down and list all of the "Jewish intellectuals" and their ideas, you will find, at least I have found, most of them spewed garbage, garbage which in many cases they themselves did not believe, but what they shared in common is espousing ideology which undermined Christianity and White identity. And this pattern has continued with "Jewish intellectuals" pretty consistently ever since. Yes, there is a very clear pattern. And one could even dub it - and we are full circle back to - a group evolutionary strategy based on undermining the unity of one's competitors for power (a/k/a "divide and conquer").

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " Jews and Christians have never gotten along, "

    For me it is pretty probable that christianity was created by Paul, as secret agent of the Roman king, to destroy the jewish culture, after two large armies had destroyed jewry politically.
    Christianity was aimed at jews, a far more easy religion.
    This also explains that the bible begins with the jewish Torah.
    Alas propaganda often backfires, christianity destroyed the Roman empire.

    I scratch my head. Have you gone off your rocker? Or is this a very perverse kind of trolling? Are we finally to wake up to the real “jille dyxtra” phenomenon?

    Just two simple points You must know that there hadn’t been a Roman king for hundreds of years. And where was there evidence of Jewish communities outside Palestine which were sufficiently troublesome to the religiously tolerant Roman state that they had to be disrupted?

    BTW what do you think Paul’s dates were? After all those “two large armies” were decades, even generations, apart, were they not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    King indeed was a mistake, should have been emperor.
    About Paul
    Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, ‘Verschlusssache Jesus, Die Wahrheit über das frühe Christentum’, (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, 1991), 2005, Bergisch Gladbach
    Jews in the Roman empire
    Michael Grant, 'The Jews in the Roman World', 1973, New York
    Roman war in Palestine
    Flavius Josephus, ‘Geschichte des Jüdischen Krieges’, Wiesbaden, 1978
    Large army
    Yigael Yadin, ‘Massada, Hero’s fortress and the zealots’ last stand’, London 1996

    The murder on the emperor, it seems he took away jewish prerogatives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. anonomy says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, the dueling Cofnas and MacDonald articles total about 30,000 words and since I'm busy with my own software work, I haven't read any of it. But glancing over some of the huge outpouring of comments, it looks like one important issue under debate is the question of Jewish IQ.

    A few years back, I published numerous articles and columns rather exhaustively dealing with exactly this contentious topic, along with IQ in general, and at least in my own mind, rather conclusively resolved important aspects of the puzzle. Since my writings generated enormous discussion at the time, including in the elite MSM, and this is my own website, where some of those articles have been prominently featured, one would think that most readers are aware of them. But I doubt that's the case, so here are a few of the more important links:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/race-iq-and-wealth/

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    http://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/race-iq/?ItemOrder=ASC

    http://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/#the-strange-collapse-of-jewish-academic-achievement

    http://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/meritocracy/?ItemOrder=ASC

    Apparently, there's also some nitwit YouTube celebrity named Jordan Peterson ignorantly spouting off on this issue, seemingly without having done any serious investigation, so perhaps now is a good opportunity for trying to correct the public record regarding these important facts.

    And since this is my own website, I've taken the extreme liberty of duplicating this comment on both threads.

    OH WOW, Are you going to do the Jordan Peterson Personality Assessment Test? I seen one fella got a 100% Asshole.
    Is that all it takes, just go out and say “I’m not PC”, and insta fame on YouTube.
    Who has your data. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen
    But all those words! Think of the word count!

    You can do better than your jibes here. As to this one, surely Revusky is one of the most longwinded narcissists ever takung space on UR.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. i have to challenge the premiere premise, that whiteness is an ethnicity. Most Europeans are wgite, b ut have no unique ethnic connection — skin color is a biological construct. There is nothing inherent to culture that could not exist is same or similar form if said population was green.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. Frankie P says:
    @geokat62
    I originally posted this comment under the Cofnas thread. I think it deserves to be reposted here.

    ———————————

    Came across this terrific, but lengthy, interview by Luke Ford (someone with an Anglo-Saxon background who converted to Orthodox Judaism) of both Prof. Kevin MacDonald and PhD candidate Nathan Confas, the co-author of this article.

    https://youtu.be/ARhqt38bMZA

    Given the length of the video, I decided to transcribe what I consider to be the most interesting segment of the exchange between Ford and Confas, which begins at 20:40:33:

    Luke Ford – Is anti-Jewish sentiment always irrational?

    Nathan Cofnas – Ah (very long pause) in that general sense, I would say “no.” But a big deal of anti-Jewish sentiment is irrational.

    Luke Ford – Oh, for example, every major American Jewish organization promotes immigration amnesty. They want the 20 to 30 million people in this country here illegally – now, generally low IQ types – who are here in this country illegally, they want to grant them amnesty. And when they make their arguments, they never talk about what’s good for America. They talk about you know these lofty, philosophical, moral things. And so I see all the major Jewish organizations, and that includes the Orthodox Union and the Agudath Israel, they are trying to fill my bedroom with poisonous snakes. And so how do I feel about people who try to fill my bedroom with poisonous snakes? I don’t bother about differentiating, I just hate these organizations, and I hate the people who run them, and it’s just like passionate.. and I’m Jewish. So, what is the non-Jew going to think when they see every major American Jewish organization, you know, try to inject poison into the American bloodstream?

    Nathan Cofnas – That’s why, as I’ve argued publicly, I think organizations like the ADL are very bad for the Jews in that they are causing much more antisemitism then they’re preventing. In fact, I think they do nothing to prevent antisemitism, at all. I understand why people resent these organizations and why they might blame Jews. Because these organizations themselves pretend to speak on behalf of the Jewish community. So, a non-Jew could take them at their word and say “ok, you represent the Jewish community and you’re advocating something unreasonable”… and, maybe, Jews are unreasonable.

    Luke Ford – How much responsibility do ordinary Jews have that their leaders are hell bent by injecting poison into the American bloodstream?

    Nathan Cofnas – That’s an interesting ethical question. What kind of responsibility does a community have for collective action, the actions of its leaders? I think the Jewish community does have some responsibility to push back against these self-appointed leaders in a more public and aggressive way than we have. I think, insofar as we can be held collectively responsible for our actions, I think Jews have made mistakes in these areas.
     
    While this is pretty consistent with what I’ve been saying for quite some time, it’s refreshing to see someone from the Jewish community who is honest enough to admit this. Could you imagine our resident maven ever admitting to something like this? I couldn’t.

    Thank you for typing out that interesting exchange between Ford and Confas. It certainly focuses on some of the troubling actions of the organized American Jewish community as a whole, and Ford does NOT pussyfoot around with his feelings; he gets right down to it with strong, emotional language. I wonder if action will be taken to rescind his conversion for his ignoring the concept of omerta. An additional note of interest is one that Wally alludes to in his response to iffen, and that is the replies to your post by iffen and Wizard, both falling into the category of defenders of Israel and Jewish interests as a whole. The curious case of the dog that didn’t bark. Neither address the pithy issues in the exchange between Ford and Confas, both deflect and dissemble with peripheral trivial issues, iffen critizing repeated postings of an excellent post (again without addressing the issues), and the Wiz wondering who the maven may be, when a cursory scrolling through earlier comments would yield copious evidence of Lot’s eternal, stinky diarrhea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I do not consider Jew-baiting to be a “pithy” issue. I do comment on some of the anti-Semitic comments, but there are so many choices and so little time that I can't get to all of them. I do not deflect nor dissemble with regard to Jews or Israel, although, I would if I thought it necessary.

    The maven is not the Wiz, but rather is Sam Shama who is currently out of the loop. (I suspect he is on a secret Mossad mission.)

    I do not defend all Israeli policies, just their right to exist like any other country. I defend American Jews from neo-Nazi pellet droppers and such.

    Lot is a very knowledgeable and thoughtful commenter.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    my critique of Cochran and Harpending is here
     
    Anybody can explain Cochran? He seem to be obsessed with Jewish IQ and keeps pumping up the meme how smart Jews are. Did he at least do any new original testing to confirm values of Jewish IQ or just keeps repeating the old and dubious and mutually contradictory sources?

    Who pays for his "research"?

    Jewish IQ is not a problem.

    Heck even I’m above the mean IQ of an Askenazi Jew, whether it be 109 or 115!

    What matters is their culture, insofar as it inculcates loyalty to the Jewish nation before loyalty to the nation among whom Jews reside.

    Such a mentality inevitably leads to corporate behavior aimed at promoting Jews over non-Jews and treating non-Jews as inferior to Jews, as indeed the Jewish religion teaches and the secularized Jewish culture firmly inculcates in the minds of those that adhere to it.

    And in fact, this attitude of Jewish supremacism leads directly to genocidal policies against host nations as seen in Sweden today where a single Jewish family, the Bonniers control the media and bar criticism of their advocacy for mass replacement immigration. Thus:

    In 1993 the newspaper Expressen broke one of the great taboos of Swedish politics and published a rare opinion poll on the country’s actual views. Under the headline “Throw them out” the paper revealed that 63 percent of swedish people wanted immigrants to go back to their home countries. An accompanying article by the papers’s editor-in-chief Erik Mansson, noted that, “The Swedish people have a firm opinion on immigration and refugee policies. Those in power have the opposite opnion. It does not add up. It is an opinion bomb about to go off. That is why we are writing about this, starting today. Telling it just like it is. In black and white. Before the bomb goes off” As though to prove the point he was making, the only result of this opinion poll was that the owners of Expressen fired the Paper’s editor-in-chief.

    The Strange Death of Europe. Douglas Murray, 2017

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. CalDre says:
    @Lot
    There are lots of people who proclaim they have the highest IQ in the world. Doesn't mean it is true.

    BYU is the single best college in a huge region. It is not comparable to UConn or CSULB.

    You all seem to confuse general rules (groundbreaking research doesn't come out of professors at places like Cal State Long Beach) with "Every smart person goes to a top college" which is obviously false and not something I said or implied.

    What a loser attempt to discredit ideas via snobbery. Are you fucking for real? It’s hard for me to comprehend someone could be such an utter condescending snob to close his mind to the idea that …. Wait, that’s not what you’re doing, you’re just a mouthpiece for the ruling class and your actual stupid fucking pathetic view point is, “if the idea is not sanctioned by the ruling class, it has no value”.

    My God is that pathetic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Bardon Kaldian
    I don't see much new in Kevin MacDonald's response to Confas' critique (which is, by the way, too limited & ahistorical). MacDonald has just re-iterated his old claims:

    * Jews "follow group evolutionary strategy". He didn't prove that such a strategy exists at all, apart from a trivial observation that any human collective wants to preserve its identity & to thrive. No "strategy" in such a behavior.

    * also, the author's description of "Jewish movements" is non-verifiable & actually difficult to describe. From what I know of Marxism, psychoanalysis or Leninism- these were not "Jewish" movements, neither in intellectual genesis nor with regard to their proponents.
    What about other intellectual currents, prominent in 20th & 21st C? Do these movements or cultural currents qualify as "Jewish": anarchism, free-love leftism, Expressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, German phenomenology in philosophy, cultural critique (Derrida & Foucault following Heidegger), New Left with its post-1968 ideology, multiculturalism as ideology, Jungian archetypal psychology, New Age ideologies, radical Feminism, "New Atheism", evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, various schools of economics (Austrian, Chicago,..), structuralism in humanities, ..?
    I know next to nothing on Boasian anthropology, but I do know quite a lot about Communism & various branches of psychoanalysis, and I don't see how one can show these movement are "Jewish" in origin or history? For instance, except for being Austrian Jew, what is "Jewish" in early, Freudian variant of psychoanalysis? This "school" was a product of German culture during fin de siecle & the general knowledge of psychiatry during these times. What is "Jewish" in its structure, values or general trend, in its goals, or in its map of human psyche?

    * what about areas where ethnic Jews are over-represented in 20th & 21st fields: theoretical physics, all branches of mathematics, chess masters, computer science, violin virtuosi, philanthropists in arts & curators of museums, film directors & producers, ..? Are these areas somehow driven by Jewish interests, whether conscious or not? How can we ascertain this?

    Although I admire MacDonald's work in demolition of maudlin myth the core American Jewish community has over time built about it (eternal victims & universal humanitarians), I don't see his work as dispassionate analysis that would be close to even such a non-exact "science" as evolutionary psychology claims to be. With its broad sweep of generalizations, MacDonald's work on historical traits of Judaism (as culture) is not unlike other historiosophies, similar to St. Augustine, Gioacchino da Fiore, Hegel, Marx or Spengler.

    There are insights in these works- but they are basically an imaginative construction, not more.

    That said, I am sorry MacDonald's work had been basically ignored in academic community. In my opinion, not due to Jewish grip on intellectual discourse, but to dumbification of academia- there is not such thing as intellectual discourse anymore.

    “Is it good for the jews”. An ethic of the tribe so embedded in their culture, several Jewish authors employed it as a title for their books.. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Is+it+good+for+the+jews

    As an aside though..note that Freud was a Jew, but apparently not a Zionist. Excerpted from a 1930 letter Freud wrote to Keren Hajessod (Dr. Chaim Koffler):

    I cannot do as you wish (sign a petition criticizing the 1929 Arab revolt) … Whoever wants to influence the masses must give them something rousing and inflammatory and my sober judgment of Zionism does not permit this….But, on the other hand, I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state, nor that the Christian and Islamic worlds would ever be prepared to have their holy places under Jewish care. It would have seemed more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less historically-burdened land. But I know that such a rational viewpoint would never have gained the enthusiasm of the masses and the financial support of the wealthy.

    I concede with sorrow that the baseless fanaticism of our people is in part to be blamed for the awakening of Arab distrust. I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives.
    Now judge for yourself whether I, with such a critical point of view, am the right person to come forward as the solace of a people deluded by unjustified hope.

    Your obedient servant,

    Freud

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. iffen says:
    @Frankie P
    Thank you for typing out that interesting exchange between Ford and Confas. It certainly focuses on some of the troubling actions of the organized American Jewish community as a whole, and Ford does NOT pussyfoot around with his feelings; he gets right down to it with strong, emotional language. I wonder if action will be taken to rescind his conversion for his ignoring the concept of omerta. An additional note of interest is one that Wally alludes to in his response to iffen, and that is the replies to your post by iffen and Wizard, both falling into the category of defenders of Israel and Jewish interests as a whole. The curious case of the dog that didn't bark. Neither address the pithy issues in the exchange between Ford and Confas, both deflect and dissemble with peripheral trivial issues, iffen critizing repeated postings of an excellent post (again without addressing the issues), and the Wiz wondering who the maven may be, when a cursory scrolling through earlier comments would yield copious evidence of Lot's eternal, stinky diarrhea.

    I do not consider Jew-baiting to be a “pithy” issue. I do comment on some of the anti-Semitic comments, but there are so many choices and so little time that I can’t get to all of them. I do not deflect nor dissemble with regard to Jews or Israel, although, I would if I thought it necessary.

    The maven is not the Wiz, but rather is Sam Shama who is currently out of the loop. (I suspect he is on a secret Mossad mission.)

    I do not defend all Israeli policies, just their right to exist like any other country. I defend American Jews from neo-Nazi pellet droppers and such.

    Lot is a very knowledgeable and thoughtful commenter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Please tell us what "Jew-baiting" is.

    You should be very pleased to know that 'the Nazis' did not kill 6M Jews.

    Lot is a believer in the impossibly absurd.

    We challenge you and Lot to debate.

    No name calling level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com
    CODOH main site here:
    www.codoh.com

    , @Frankie P
    I'm curious and puzzled as to how you can portray the civil exchange between Ford and Confas as "Jew-baiting", especially since they are both Jews and they are seriously discussing the influence of American Jewish groups on American society. It's almost as if you view the discussion of the influence of organized Jewish groups as Anti-semitism, even when it is two Jews discussing it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. CalDre says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    ...at one point, as I was researching it, I compared the Kaballah teachings with Freud’s id/ego/superego and found them remarkably similar.
     
    And come to think of it: both are remarkably similar to Plato's theory of a tripartite soul

    Maybe Plato was an archaeo-crypto elder of zion!

    Shivveeerrzzzzz (internet: that was sarcasm)

    Actually AFAIK it is believed, without contradiction, that Saadiah, Maimonides and, in particular, the Zoha, were all influenced by Plato’s tripartite soul (in Hebrew, nefesh (appetite, desire), ruah (spirit), and neshamah (reason)).

    My point, in context of where I made it back in the thread, was simply that Freud’s Jewishness profoundly influenced his work – as his influence came through the Zoha (Kabbalism), not Platonic philosophy. And not just in that regard, but in general, due to Jews’ profound hatred of and contempt for Christianity, Jewish intellectuals , particularly in the Frankfurt School but elsewhere too, worked feverishly to undermine Christianity and its principles and the corresponding “White identity” which had formed around it.

    That to me is why Freud’s Jewishness is a remarkable part of the story. Because his theories were utter fucking filthy garbage and he was a pathetic and filthy pervert. But he became famous precisely because his perversity undermined Christianity. If one day you sit down and list all of the “Jewish intellectuals” and their ideas, you will find, at least I have found, most of them spewed garbage, garbage which in many cases they themselves did not believe, but what they shared in common is espousing ideology which undermined Christianity and White identity. And this pattern has continued with “Jewish intellectuals” pretty consistently ever since. Yes, there is a very clear pattern. And one could even dub it – and we are full circle back to – a group evolutionary strategy based on undermining the unity of one’s competitors for power (a/k/a “divide and conquer”).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Frankie P says:
    @John Gruskos
    Most of the commenters, both pro-MacDonald and anti-MacDonald, seem to agree that average IQ varies from people group to people group.

    The big disagreement is about whether ethnocentrism varies from people group to people group.

    The pro-MacDonald commenters say yes, ethnocentrism does vary from people group to people group, and Jews are one of the most ethnocentric people groups, while North European peoples tend to be among the least ethnocentric peoples.

    Most provocatively, the pro-MacDonald commenters insist that it is these differences in ethnocentrism, rather than differences in IQ, which explain Jewish over-representation in certain notorious groups - Bolsheviks, organized crime, white collar crime, "modern art", spies (Rosenbergs, Pollard) and their apologists, open borders activists, pornographers, welfare fraud, Hollywood, sexual revolution, opposition to Christianity in the public sphere, belligerent Russophobes, and the pseudo-scientific intellectual movements reviewed in Culture of Critique (Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychology, Frankfurt School sociology, etc.) - all explained by the particularistic (rather than universalistic) morality associated with high ethnocentrism: "Is it good for the Jews?", not "Is it good?"

    To my reading, the information presented in Ron Unz's Myth of American Meritocracy supports the pro-MacDonald view.

    To summarize bluntly, here are how various groups are represented in admissions to elite academia:

    Blacks, Hispanics - fairly represented with respect to share of population, over represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    Asians - over represented with respect to share of population, fairly represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    Jews - over represented with respect to share of population, and also over represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    White Gentiles - under represented with respect to share of population, and also under represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ

    This is exactly what MacDonald's theory of ethnocentrism would predict.

    Groups with medium ethnocentrism (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians) are able to ensure fair representation with respect to whichever metric is most favorable to their group.

    Groups with high ethnocentrism (Jews) are able to ensure over representation with respect to all metrics.

    Groups with low ethnocentrism (White Gentiles) are unable to ensure fair representation by any metric.

    “Asians – over represented with respect to share of population, fairly represented with respect to academic achievement/IQ”

    Perhaps fairly represented with respect to IQ, but certainly not fairly represented with respect to academic achievement as manifested by high school academics and SAT scores.

    And yes, I agree with the argument that student excellence depends on other factors in which Asians are notoriously weak: social interaction, teamwork and team building, creative problem solving, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @joe webb
    so much yakkity -yak about IQ. How high an IQ does one have to possess to learn how to tie one's shoelaces?

    Figuring out the jews requires a few more IQ points than learning to tie one's shoes, granted.

    What I keep on going on about is the religious factor, which nobody wants to address. Now maybe that takes higher IQ than figuring out the jews . Elementary but the bias of secular intellectuals is to overlook the religious.

    Jews are the foundation of Christianity and are our sacred cows...go to any church and see what the readings are...always from both OT and NT. Does the rabbi read from the NT....?

    Trump can reverse himself and hire Bolton, etc. Trump is the newest member of the neocons, and the jews win again. Impeach Trump

    Hello?

    “so much yakkity -yak about IQ.”

    Agreed, this makes my little gentile brain hurt…
    Anyone know Macdonald and Nehlans stance on a real 9/11 investigation?
    Doesn’t take a genius to know that the official version is a lie, the truth covered up by our hero Mueller… original 9/11 commission members have said investigation was a sham, set up to fail.
    I’ve looked and haven’t found the answer. This is a question we should be asking all candidates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Wally says:
    @iffen
    I do not consider Jew-baiting to be a “pithy” issue. I do comment on some of the anti-Semitic comments, but there are so many choices and so little time that I can't get to all of them. I do not deflect nor dissemble with regard to Jews or Israel, although, I would if I thought it necessary.

    The maven is not the Wiz, but rather is Sam Shama who is currently out of the loop. (I suspect he is on a secret Mossad mission.)

    I do not defend all Israeli policies, just their right to exist like any other country. I defend American Jews from neo-Nazi pellet droppers and such.

    Lot is a very knowledgeable and thoughtful commenter.

    Please tell us what “Jew-baiting” is.

    You should be very pleased to know that ‘the Nazis’ did not kill 6M Jews.

    Lot is a believer in the impossibly absurd.

    We challenge you and Lot to debate.

    No name calling level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    CODOH main site here:
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Anon
    I scratch my head. Have you gone off your rocker? Or is this a very perverse kind of trolling? Are we finally to wake up to the real "jille dyxtra" phenomenon?

    Just two simple points You must know that there hadn't been a Roman king for hundreds of years. And where was there evidence of Jewish communities outside Palestine which were sufficiently troublesome to the religiously tolerant Roman state that they had to be disrupted?

    BTW what do you think Paul's dates were? After all those "two large armies" were decades, even generations, apart, were they not?

    King indeed was a mistake, should have been emperor.
    About Paul
    Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, ‘Verschlusssache Jesus, Die Wahrheit über das frühe Christentum’, (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, 1991), 2005, Bergisch Gladbach
    Jews in the Roman empire
    Michael Grant, ‘The Jews in the Roman World’, 1973, New York
    Roman war in Palestine
    Flavius Josephus, ‘Geschichte des Jüdischen Krieges’, Wiesbaden, 1978
    Large army
    Yigael Yadin, ‘Massada, Hero’s fortress and the zealots’ last stand’, London 1996

    The murder on the emperor, it seems he took away jewish prerogatives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Richard Lynn – the guy who published “The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement” and started the “110 Ashkenazi IQ” ball rolling
     
    It is the shabbos goys who are doing the job of spreading the gospel of Jewish HBD supremacy: Lynn, Murray, Cochran, Sailer, Peterson with some help of Jews like Harris and Pinker. The meme is going mainstream and is there to help the masses understand that their masters are there because of immutable universal laws established by IQ sacred science and nothing can be done about it except to submit to masters. But masters are not cruel and let whites having some consolation with that their IQ is higher than that of blacks. The consoling goes 24/7 at VDare and iSteve with occasional reminding how smart our masters are.

    True. We can only hope that one of them (Kevin MacDonald, maybe) decides to purchase some mineral supplements and tackles this ridiculous propaganda.

    The Jews are only a tiny, 2% minority in the US, so even if we take the 110 (Ashkenazi) IQ claim at face value (lol) the US whites would outnumber them more than 15 to 1 in the number of 110+ IQ people. Gosh, Nathan Cofnas might not be so smart after all. His “default hypothesis” – a.k.a. “we’re just that clever, goy” – can’t explain anything. He needs to think bigger. I’d go with a 210 IQ number next time.

    Read More
    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "...ridiculous propaganda."
    --- What planet are you from? Kevin MacDonald gives a clear explanation of the tribal psychology of supremacy and of its pernicious influence on western civilization. For example, there are anti-freedom-of-speech laws designed to protect Israel's "image." Never heard about this? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/city-links-hurricane-relief-support-israel-171021080158569.html
    "In Dickinson, Texas, residents must sign a pledge not to boycott Israel in order to obtain hurricane relief funds."
    And you peddle your stuff about Jewish moral and intellectual superiority and about Jewish innocent defenselessness? -- You are funny.
    , @CalDre
    Even if one buys into the "Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than Aryans" myth, which clearly I don't, it does not explain Jewish success.

    The rational, evolutionary response of any group (W) that is confronted with an "other"group (J) which seeks to gain power within W and assert dominance over W is to prevent that. Groups which do not successfully protect themselves from dominance by other groups simply cease to exist, or at least cease to be successful. History is chock full of groups - whether species of animals or human groups such as "primitive" (in terms of "the will to power", not in terms of spirituality or emotional development) tribes - which died out for their failure to prevent domination by other groups.

    Now Whites in particular are not hesitant to dominate other groups or to defend themselves against domination by others. The history of European warfare, colonialism and imperialism, as well as destruction of various incompatible species, prove that beyond the shadow of any doubt.

    So what is special about Jews that they are able to foil W's natural survival instinct? It's most certainly NOT "intelligence" - W's far greater numbers and objectively greater power (if only focused) would serve to utterly dominate Js, as the German attempted expulsion (NOT extermination, so tired of that fucking Jewish "Big Lie") of Jews in WW II proves. However MacDonald's "group evolutionary strategy" provides some insights.

    As far as I see it, different groups have tried to dominate the world throughout history. Most of them have tried to do so through military conquest. What is unique about Jews, as a tribe/nation, is that they attempt to gain world domination through infiltration and usurpation. And, for whatever reason, they have been quite successful at masking their diabolical infiltration by use of the "anti-Semitism" canard, as if some group not wanting to be dominated by an "other" group, particularly one that despises the majority group, is a sign of hatred - rather the hatred, really, comes from the Jews, who are trying to dominate the others. So Jews are successfully able to "turn the tables", make black into white, by accusing others of hatred of them, simply for opposing Jews' hatred of, and efforts to dominate, the others.

    There are of course other groups that use similar strategies. Indeed, this strategy is a common strategy of the ruling oligarchy in any society. Rulership within a society, while often initially accomplished by violence / conquest, retains its power through usurpation, typically propaganda that attempts to justify some small good-for-nothing group of murderers and thieves, which all ruling classes are, having power over the rest of society.

    Jews just have a very clever way of obtaining control. And honestly it doesn't even bother me, that they try and have a successful strategy, in the abstract. What really pisses me off at Jews to no end - actually, about the only thing that does - is their constant aggressive smears of "anti-Semitism" and other diabolical propaganda, including criminalizing their double-think "hate speech" and legal prohibitions on speech about and demonization of racial identity by non-Jews (which Jews themselves exploit to its fullest potential), to prevent an honest debate about what is happening.

    So in the end, it is not intelligence, but radical ethnocentrism (including affirmative action toward tribe members) and "class consciousness" (i.e., deliberate and malicious attacks on tribal competitors) which is the key to Jewish success.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments