The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
The Cofnas Problem
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Shortly after Nathan Cofnas published his first article on Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique in 2018,[1]Cofnas, N. (2018). Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: A critical analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s theory. Human Nature, 29(2), 134–156. I spent a few weeks sketching out a quite extensive ‘skeleton’ for a rebuttal I intended to flesh out and publish at The Occidental Observer. The speed and extent of replies from MacDonald,[2]MacDonald, K. (2018a). Reply to Nathan Cofnas The Unz Review (March 20, 2018); MacDonald, K. Second Reply to Nathan Cofnas, Revision of April 19, 2018 and, later, Ed Dutton, eventually made me think that my own effort would appear belated and redundant, and so I abandoned the idea even though I felt that some of my own criticisms hadn’t really been touched upon by either MacDonald or Dutton. Afterwards, a number of more minor exchanges and replies took place between these figures, but the repetitive and intransigent nature of Cofnas’s replies, even when faced with clear examples of the weakness of his “default hypothesis,” only increased my apathy and deterred me from getting involved.

It would appear, however, that Cofnas intends to milk as many publications as he can from a single set of poor ideas, as demonstrated by the fact he has now yet again essentially republished his original article, with some very minor tweaks, in Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel (!), a poorly ranked and little regarded journal that, unsurprisingly, appears to have accepted Cofnas’s paper without hesitation. What follows is my perspective on the work of Nathan Cofnas, stripped of the usual academic pleasantries, in the hope that it will offer readers a more clear-sighted insight into the matters under discussion.

Does Kevin MacDonald Omit Contradictory Data and Misrepresent His Sources?

The most obvious methodological problem with the articles produced by Cofnas thus far on the work of Kevin MacDonald is that they are historiographically illiterate. In neither his original 2018 article, nor the 2021 rehash, does Cofnas cite a single volume of serious thematic history on the Jews and their relations with Europeans, or demonstrate in any way that he has consulted one. In none of his essays does he explore in any fashion the second, and most historiographically intensive, of MacDonald’s three volumes, Separation and Its Discontents (SAID) (although he does claim [absurdly] that his critique of The Culture of Critique (CofC) also refutes SAID). Nor does he demonstrate anywhere in his work that he has in fact read it. The expected rejoinder would be that Cofnas is merely a philosopher concerned with biology and ethics, to which one can only respond that while Kevin MacDonald is a professor of evolutionary psychology, he still managed to consult and integrate around two hundred historical monographs when he decided to explore the historical trajectory and behavioral traits of the Jews.

Cofnas, who cites himself and webzines more than monographs, has attempted to escape from having to rely on historiography, much of which is quite frankly damning of everything he’s written, via two primary strategies. The first is that he simply rubbishes MacDonald’s use of historiography, accusing MacDonald of relying on “systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts.” For such a bold statement, however, Cofnas merely references his own original article as supporting evidence for it, and spends only one paragraph in that original article attempting to prove its veracity, with one of its central pillars being the claim that MacDonald omits evidence that might run counter to his theory of a group evolutionary strategy. In his 2018 article, for example, Cofnas writes of Culture of Critique,

Nowhere in the book does he acknowledge that a great deal of Jewish involvement in politics across time and place has been decidedly opposed to narrow Jewish interests, including Israel. The most influential Jewish radical in history, Karl Marx, held extremely anti-Jewish views.

The implication here, somewhat muddled, is that MacDonald is willing to refer, for example, to Karl Marx as a Jew and a radical socialist, but not as an anti-Semite. It’s an unfortunate example offered by Cofnas, however, because MacDonald does in fact do the latter right at the beginning of his chapter (3) on Jews and the Left. In MacDonald’s own words,

Marx himself, though born of two ethnically Jewish parents, has been viewed by many as an anti-Semite. His critique of Judaism (“On the Jewish Question”) conceptualized Judaism as fundamentally concerned with egoistic money seeking; it has achieved world domination by making both man and nature into saleable objects. Marx viewed Judaism as an abstract principle of human greed that would end in the communist society of the future.

And there is a long footnote to this passage discussing some of the claims made by various scholars regarding Marx’s Jewish identity, the point being that Cofnas’s bald assertion that Marx was an anti-Semite is historically illiterate. So much for “nowhere in the book.” It’s difficult to imagine a clearer and more succinct enunciation and summary of the anti-Jewish aspects of Karl Marx’s thought, which MacDonald then clearly and thoughtfully addresses. Citing Jacob Katz (and as an owner of several volumes by Katz I’ve checked for accuracy), perhaps the foremost mainstream 20th century scholar of Jewish-Christian relations between the medieval and modern periods, MacDonald astutely qualifies his summary of Marx’s anti-Semitism by stressing that “Marx argued against the idea that Jews must give up their Jewishness to be German citizens, and he envisioned that Judaism, freed from the principle of greed, would continue to exist in the transformed society after the revolution.” Cofnas not only doesn’t have a response to this fact, or the source material, his article merely dissembles that it doesn’t exist, or that MacDonald in any case doesn’t make reference to it. Again, this is in the context of Cofnas’s accusation of “misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts.” Who is really misrepresenting sources in this instance?

The specific accusation that MacDonald had misrepresented and cherry-picked facts had particular resonance for me because the wording was very similar to an old exchange I’d read on H-Net over a decade ago when I first encountered MacDonald’s work. Of the trilogy, I had read Separation and Its Discontents first, and found it nothing less than remarkable. I quickly ordered the other two volumes, and after that began reading ‘around’ the books, as is my inescapable habit with any text, by consulting available scholarly criticism. During this process, I came across the complaints of several Jewish scholars, most prominent among them David I. Lieberman (then, like Cofnas, a doctoral student—in musicology), who would later belatedly admit of MacDonald’s trilogy “I was able to complete a thorough reading and critique of only volume one and some skimming of the other two.” Cofnas, of course, openly admitted in his first essay to not even considering the first two volumes.

Nevertheless, despite evidence of only the most superficial reading, Lieberman and a handful of others made enough accusations (as with Cofnas, these were only rarely or pedantically substantiated) of manipulation of sources in CofC for me to engage in a few days of detective work. I was more or less encamped in my college library at the time and, while I couldn’t consult all of the works listed by MacDonald in SAID and CofC, I was able to find most of the historical works, and ended that few days of research satisfied that MacDonald’s use of the scholarly sources was both accurate and appropriate. I don’t know anything about Cofnas’s methodology in preparing his critique of MacDonald’s work, although it looks like no more than a couple of afternoons spent on the internet, but I can say that what he has written is most certainly not original, at least not to anyone remotely familiar with the extensive (and around 20-year-old) H-Net exchanges. In fact, Cofnas comes across as a very pale and embarrassing echo of Lieberman. Has Cofnas simply “borrowed” Lieberman’s accusations of source misrepresentation and cherry-picking, assuming them to have more substance than they in fact do? This is anyone’s guess, although I’m fairly certain of my own opinion on the matter.

I think it would be beneficial to closely examine at least one of the major original H-Net “manipulation/omission” accusations in order to explore more deeply the way these Jewish students have approached both MacDonald and the source material. In a 2001 post titled “MacDonald’s citations and silences,” Lieberman focuses heavily on MacDonald’s discussion of Jewish support for communism in Poland between 1939 and 1945. In fact, the vast majority of his discussion of putative source manipulation concerns this one narrow area. Lieberman writes,

Kevin MacDonald’s discussion of Jews in Communist Poland [“Jedwabne,” 16 Feb 2001] continues to exhibit the tendencies I explore in my Occasional Paper on his citations to Jaff Schatz: principally, MacDonald bases conclusions on isolated quotations drawn from his sources, ignoring contradictory data that appears in those same sources. MacDonald’s conclusion: “Jews were correctly perceived as more welcoming of the Soviets after the 1939 invasion and as more loyal to the Communist regime after 1945.” I have already noted that MacDonald’s generalizations about Jewish group loyalty to the postwar Communist regime in Poland rest heavily on his omission of large-scale Jewish emigration as a factor in assessing Jewish loyalty. Schatz reports figures that show a decline in the Jewish population of some two-thirds between 1945 and 1949, information MacDonald withholds from his readers. (Schatz, 1991, 203, 207, 208). [emphasis added]

The first problem with this critique should be obvious. Here we have Lieberman accusing MacDonald of lifting quotes out of context, who then, without the slightest hint of irony, proceeds to refer to just a single, context-less sentence from MacDonald. Cofnas performs much the same charade, and it is as tedious as it is pathetic. In CofC, MacDonald in fact spends ten pages discussing Jews and Polish communism, in which there is much nuance and several streams of argument, which Lieberman would have us dismiss because the Jewish student is unhappy with the way in which MacDonald summarizes some of it. If we read Lieberman’s critique more closely, we see that his problem is not with the first half of the sentence, since on that matter Lieberman has nothing to say. And nor should he have something to say, since it is scholarly consensus (not to mention common sense) that Polish Jews in 1939, temporarily or otherwise, found the communists the better option between the more anti-Semitic National Socialists and the equally anti-Jewish Polish Nationalists. The problem then, is with MacDonald’s assertion that Jews remaining in Poland after 1945 were correctly perceived as more loyal to the Communist regime. Here, Lieberman makes the case that this is incorrect because MacDonald hasn’t taken into account Jewish emigrants. Again, to be absolutely clear, Lieberman is unhappy that in a discussion of loyalty to the Communist regime among Jews in Poland, MacDonald is not discussing Jews who emigrated. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence sees no contradiction in MacDonald’s treatment of the subject here. MacDonald’s argument is primarily that Jews are highly ethnocentric and are flexible strategists in pursuing their interests. The majority of Polish Jews after 1945 saw their group and individual interests better served in emigrating, primarily to Israel. And here we have a repetition of Cofnas’s “nowhere in the book” howler, because contrary to Lieberman’s accusation of omission, MacDonald clearly refers to, and explains, the emigration of “most Polish Jews” to Israel in the course of his discussion of Polish Jews and communism, at the bottom of page 66 (paperback edition).

The accusation of omission, like that of our new Lieberman-lite in relation to Marx, is simply bogus — the result either of blatant lies or of mere “skimming” of the texts these students pretentiously attempt to critique. This just leaves us with the commonsense idea that those Jews who remained and did not emigrate would have likely possessed a particular loyalty to the Communist regime. Lieberman offers no argument to this assertion. And so we see that behind big, bold accusations of source misrepresentation and omission we find nothing but poor reading comprehension and an incomplete study of the texts on the part of the student critics.

This pattern is repeated for all of Lieberman’s accusations, as I discovered more than a decade ago, and which sparked my first correspondence with MacDonald. Where MacDonald is accused of “ignoring contradictory data” we most often find that MacDonald has in fact included the contradictory data and that it has been ignored or missed by critics. In other instances, we find that the ignored “data” is simply the subjective opinion of a historian which MacDonald is by no means obliged to agree with. Lieberman’s charade lasted around two years. Sleepy Nathan Cofnas, with his single paragraph, seems to be attempting a similar challenge but is noticeably “low energy” when compared to his predecessor. Cofnas’s similarly sleepy attempts to challenge MacDonald on post-World War II Poland were discussed extensively in MacDonald’s first (pp. 28–30) and second reply (pp. 31–32).

The “In Default” Hypothesis

Nathan Cofnas has made much of his ‘default hypothesis,” which leaves so much unsaid that it would be more accurately described as the “in default hypothesis.” Cofnas argues that, predominantly due to a higher than average IQ and a tendency toward urban living, Jews will naturally be over-represented in all intellectual movements and activities that are not overtly anti-Semitic. As such, while Jews may be overrepresented in pro-immigration, pro-pluralism organizations and movements, the default hypothesis insists that they will also be overrepresented in nationalist, anti-immigration or restrictionist movements (that are not anti-Semitic) also. There is an inherent implication that these overrepresentations will be, more or less, to the same degree, since Cofnas refuses to discuss the matter in any serious way that might allow for, or explain, why any potential divergence in over-representation might occur.

I tested this hypothesis almost three years ago in a survey of pro-immigration and anti-immigration bodies titled “Jewish Involvement in Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations.” The senior staff directories of the three most prominent anti-immigration think tanks currently in operation in United States were consulted—are the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA, and Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). At FAIR, four of 52 senior staff members are Jewish, including President Dan Stein, Media Director Ira Mehlman, and Board members Sarah G. Epstein and Paul Nachman. This is a Jewish representation of approximately 7.7%. Across all three major anti-immigration organizations, Jews occupy 5.13% of senior roles. This is a modest over-representation of Jews relative to their proportion of the population compared to many other areas, but may in fact be a very generous figure to settle on as an approximate broader working figure, because Jews were totally absent from the senior levels of every smaller organization consulted. For example, no Jews were/are listed on staff at similar but smaller groups such as American Immigration Control Foundation, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, ProjectUSA, or American Patrol. There is thus a very real possibility that Jews are not over-represented at all in terms of involvement in anti-immigration politics. As well as quantitative data, qualitative data should also of course be considered, especially where it sheds light on the motivations of Jewish members/leaders and how these match, or diverge from, the motivations and goals of their non-Jewish counterparts. One FAIR insider, for example, has remarked of Dan Stein,

FAIR has been described by former board members as “Dan Stein’s 401(k) plan.” It scarfs up most of the immigration patriot money available, especially from timid Establishment foundations, does essentially nothing and spends a lot of its time undercutting and blocking potential rivals. Stein has been running FAIR since 1988, i.e., has presided over a period of continuous defeats for the immigration patriot movement. Activists seriously debate whether he is a mole.

Working within MacDonald’s theoretical framework, in which concerns about anti-Semitism will be primary among Jews of all political hues, a reasonable prediction would be that Jewish representation in anti-immigration movements would be both exceptional in the larger picture of the immigration debate, and, rather than being concerned about traditional America as a whole, will be focused almost exclusively on the exclusion of those immigrants or refugees perceived to be anti-Semitic, especially Muslims from the Middle East. In other words, such representations will be based on what might be termed renegade, minority, or abnormal perceptions of Jewish interests, rather than shared concerns or earnest sympathies with the greater mass of the native population.

In this regard, Ira Mehlman and Stephen Steinlight are especially interesting figures. In a 2012 interview with Peter Beinart, Mehlman is unambiguous in telling his interviewer: “current mass immigration policies are harming the interests of American Jews. … Mass immigration is introducing large numbers of new people to American society who hold far less favorable opinions of Jews.” Similarly, in 2001 Steinlight penned an essay for the Center for Immigration Studies bluntly titled “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography.” In the course of the essay, Steinlight condemns earlier periods of nativism and restrictionism in the United States, and strongly promotes pluralistic and multicultural ideals. In fact, Steinlight’s only apparent grievance with existing immigration structures is that they have resulted in the fact at some point in the next 20 years Muslims will outnumber Jews, and that Muslims with an “Islamic agenda” are growing active politically through a widespread network of national organizations. This is occurring at a time when the religion of Islam is being supplanted in many of the Islamic immigrant sending countries by the totalitarian ideology of Islamism of which vehement anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism form central tenets.

Such sentiments are essentially neoconservative, itself of course a largely Jewish ideological movement in conflict with native interests, and are entirely predictable within the basic theoretical framework offered by MacDonald, while doing little or nothing to corroborate the default hypothesis offered by Cofnas. Steinlight and Mehlman are primarily concerned by potential increases in anti-Semitism and a decline in Jewish political clout, and not with any broader implications of pluralism, multiculturalism, or White demographic decline which are the primary concerns of the vast majority of White anti-immigration activists. The point here is that MacDonald’s thesis does not require every Jewish academic to cynically use his or her discipline to advance Jewish interests, but that it does advance the idea that Jews will overwhelmingly see support for pluralism and mass immigration as being in their interests. This idea was then tested in relation to Jewish representation in refugee and pro-immigration organizations.

In contrast to a generously assumed overrepresentation of Jews in anti-immigration groups (around 5% at absolute maximum), Jews are nothing short of prolific in influential senior roles in contemporary refugee, asylum, and pro-migration organizations. Significantly, Jews occupy the leadership of all four of the largest and most influential (and nominally secular) organizations active in America today, the International Rescue Committee (President and CEO David Miliband), Refugees International (President Eric P. Schwartz, formerly of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society [HIAS]), International Refugee Assistance Project (Director Becca Heller), and Human Rights Watch (Executive Director Kenneth Roth, and Deputy Directors Iain Levine and Fred Abrahams). The International Rescue Committee works closely with the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) Division of Refugee Assistance, which was reported in August 2018 as quietly removing its staff directory page. Consultations with the Internet Wayback Machine revealed the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to be one Carl Rubenstein, an alumnus of Tel Aviv Law School. In 2017, the IRC, in conjunction with Rubenstein’s ORR, resettled more than 51,000 migrants to the United States. Jews are very prominent in the leadership of the IRC. In addition to President and CEO David Miliband, there are at least 30 Jews in senior positions within the organization including

Morton I. Abramowitz (Overseer), Madeleine Albright (Overseer), Laurent Alpert (Board Member), Clifford Asness (Board Member), Betsy Blumenthal (Overseer), Alan Batkin (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), Michael W. Blumenthal (Overseer), Susan Dentzer (Board Member), Evan G. Greenberg (Overseer), Morton I. Hamburg (Overseer), Leila Heckman (Overseer), Karen Hein (Overseer), Marvin Josephson (Overseer),Alton Kastner (Overseer and former Deputy Director), Henry Kissinger (Overseer), David A. Levine (Board Member), Reynold Levy (Overseer), Robert E. Marks (Overseer), Sara Moss (Overseer), Thomas Nides (Board Member), Susan Petricof (Overseer), Gideon Rose (Overseer), Thomas Schick (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), James Strickler (Overseer), Sally Susman (Board Member), Mona Sutphen (Board Member), Merryl Tisch (Board Member), Maureen White (Board Member), Jonathan Wiesner (Chairman Emeritus and Board Member), William Winters (Overseer), and James D. Wolfensohn (Overseer).

The Board of the IRC is comprised of 30 individuals, 12 of whom are Jewish, giving a Jewish representation at senior board level of 40%. The Board of Overseers consists of 78 individuals, of whom at least 25 are Jewish, giving a Jewish representation at this level of just over 32%. Since Jews occupy the position of CEO at the IRC, as well as 40% of the senior board and 32% of the lower board, it would be reasonable to assert that they enjoy a dominant role within the organization. This dwarfs any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups, and creates a significant problem in attempting to apply Cofnas’s default hypothesis.

The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) came to national prominence when Director Becca Heller brought a class action suit against Trump’s January 2017 travel ban on individuals from certain Muslim countries. Heller, who has described herself as an “intensely neurotic Jew,” was active from the very earliest airport detentions, and was assisted by former Yale law professor Michael Wishnie, also Jewish and a former member of Jews for Economic and Social Justice. The case was later also supported and taken up by the Immigrant’s Rights division of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) at the direction of its two Deputy Directors, Lee Gelernt and Judy Rabinowitz, both of whom are Jewish. At IRAP, there are three Jews on the board of the International Refugee Assistance Project: Jon Finer, David Nierenberg, and Carl Reisner. The board consists of 12 members, giving a Jewish representation of 25%. Aside from the board, other influential positions in the organization are held by Jews, including Deputy Legal Director (Lara Finkbeiner), and legal fellow (Julie Kornfeld). Again, this is significantly greater than any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups.

Refugee organizations are also reliant to a great extent on legal assistance provided by “immigrant’s rights” organizations. Here too, Jews appear to be overrepresented by a large margin. For example, Jews comprise just over 14% of overall listed staff at the National Immigrant Justice Center, and dominate the most senior positions. These include Director of Policy (Heidi Altman, former legal director for the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition), Associate Director of Legal Services (Ashley Huebner), Director of Litigation (Charles Roth), and Associate Director of Litigation (Keren Zwick). Maria Blumenfeld, a former senior lawyer for NIJC departed the group for another, almost identical organization, named Equal Justice Works, the Director of which is David Stern, also Jewish. Another interesting organization is the Immigrant Defense Project. Of the 15 listed senior staff, at least four are verifiably Jewish (Development Director Ariadna Rodenstein, Senior Staff Attorney Genia Blaser, Supervising Attorney Marie Mark, and Supervising Attorney Andrew Wachtenheim). This is a Jewish representation at senior level of over 26% — significantly greater than any Jewish representation seen in anti-immigration groups.

At the National Immigration Law Center, 18.5% of its staff lawyers are verifiably Jewish, and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project is under Jewish Presidency (Ty Frankel) and 26% of its board is Jewish (Frankel, Ira Feldman, David Androff, Nathan Fidel, and Andrew Silverman). The Immigrant Legal Resource Center was founded mostly via the efforts of Jewish lawyer Mark Silverman, described here as “one of the very first movement lawyers helping DREAMers.” Its board is under Jewish chairmanship (Lisa Spiegel), and its Executive Director is Eric Cohen, also Jewish. Another organization providing legal support for the pro-immigration lobby is the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Right’s Under the Law. Of its six most senior staff, three are Jewish (Jon M. Greenbaum, Lisa Bornstein, and Samuel Weiss). At the Asylum Advocacy Project, two of the five members of the advisory board are Jewish (Dani Isaacsohn and the above mentioned Michael Wishnie), and its list of donors appears to be at least 40% Jewish.

The Director of Refugee Council USA is Naomi Steinberg. The Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union is the Jewish feminist Donna Lieberman who includes among her ongoing activities “resisting the Trump regime’s attack on immigrant children and refugees,” while its Legal Director is Arthur Eisenberg. The American Immigration Council is under the Jewish Directorship of Beth Werlin, its Research Director is the Argentinian Jew Guillermo Cantor (see a great example of his propaganda here), and its Policy and Media Director is Royce Bernstein Murray. The area director for Refugee Services of Texas in Austin is the Jewish Erica Schmidt-Portnoy. Meanwhile, another Portnoy, Diane Portnoy, Jewish founder and CEO of The Immigrant Learning Center, has demanded that Massachusetts should welcome more Syrian refugees. A similar organization is the Open Avenues Foundation, which has the stated goal of “helping foreign nationals build their unique path to thrive in the United States.” The founder and executive director of Open Avenues is Danielle Goldman, also Jewish.

None of the above takes into account the equally prolific presence of Jews in what might be termed the “propagandistic” elements of the unfolding era of mass migration (e.g., the media), or areas of activism in which Jews act explicitly as Jews (e.g., HIAS, the ADL). There really is no comparison between Jewish involvement in anti-immigration politics, and Jewish involvement in pro-immigration politics. In fact, the only place on earth where one might find ample evidence of the former is Israel – a fact that damns the Cofnas default hypothesis rather than supporting it.

Argument by Anecdote

As one might suppose given the extensive range of data provided above, testing the Cofnas default hypothesis on contemporary involvement in immigration took a number of months to carry out, and involved a thorough survey of very many organizations and individuals. It was labor-intensive, but stands as an accurate and easily verifiable record of the role of Jews in contemporary American demographic and cultural change. It’s really quite remarkable, then, to see how lightly Cofnas appears to take his own hypothesis, since he refuses to subject it to any intensive testing at all. In fact, as with his brief and inaccurate accusation of MacDonald’s putative misrepresentations and omissions, there is a palpable air of laziness in all of Cofnas’s work in this area. Rather than conducting surveys of organizations, movements, or activities, Cofnas favors a kind of “argument by anecdote,” in which he simply tries to find one or two exceptions to a rule, amplifies their importance, and then reclines to bask in the dubious published glory afforded to him by co-ethnic journal editors.

One of Cofnas’s favorite anecdotes is the first American Renaissance conference, something Cofnas made much of in his original article, and which he has returned to in his 2021 rehash for Philosophia. He writes,

When given the opportunity, Jews have been overrepresented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements, as MacDonald and Joyce inadvertently acknowledge. The one major white nationalist organization in the US that is not explicitly anti-Semitic is American Renaissance. Four-out-of-ten invited speakers at the first American Renaissance conference in 1994 were Jewish (Lawrence Auster, Michael Levin, Rabbi Mayer Schiller, and Eugene Valberg) (American Renaissance 2017), and many of its most prominent supporters were Jewish.

I have to begin with Cofnas’s habit of inserting claims into the mouths of others. Nowhere have I “inadvertently acknowledged” that Jews have been overrepresented in non-anti-Semitic White nationalist movements. In fact, I find the idea laughable and entirely lacking in evidence. What Cofnas is doing here is twisting MacDonald’s citing of my work, without actually consulting the original piece. Cofnas writes,

MacDonald (2016) says that “there is a historical pattern where Jews have entered putatively nationalist movements and directed them towards positions that make them ‘safe for the Jews’, at the expense of developing a true sense of ethnic interests.” He quotes his protégé, Andrew Joyce: “That Jews would try to co-opt, or attempt to derail, a potentially damaging movement does have many historical precedents.” Joyce goes on to say that “Jews attempted to take key roles” in the German nationalist movement in 1860–1880 until, under the influence of non-Jewish leaders, the “movement adopted an ‘Aryan clause.’” So if Jews want to join white nationalist movements as equals, they are accused of scheming to make the movements “safe for the Jews” and driven out. Then white nationalists ask why Jews don’t support their movements. Haven’t they answered their own question?

In a word, no. As stated above, Cofnas suffers from a serious deficit in understanding the importance of qualitative as well as quantitative data. In brief, if Cofnas can find a Jew in a nationalist movement, even if they’re proven to be subversives, half-Jews, quarter-Jews, or even anti-Semitic Jews, everything else can be discarded. The problem is that biography is absolutely crucial to testing both MacDonald’s thesis and that of Cofnas, and yet Cofnas seems entirely unconcerned with it — a good example being Cofnas’s claiming of Hans Eysenck as a Jewish hereditarian scientist, even though Eysenck was only half-Jewish in parentage, wasn’t raised within Judaism or a Jewish milieu, and made a point of explicitly denying any affinity or connection to Jewishness.[3]“Hans Eysenck’s Controversial Career,” The Lancet, Vol. 376, August 7 2010, 407. If Cofnas was in fact familiar with the case of Victor Adler and Heinrich Friedjung, referred to above, who competed for leadership of the German nationalist movement in Austria at the end of the nineteenth century, he would be aware that both were promoting a heavily diluted, left-leaning, and multicultural nationalism unrecognisable to those non-Jewish nationalists around them. This is not only a historical fact, but a matter of overwhelming consensus in the relevant historiography. Steven Beller, one of the foremost historians of the Jews of central Europe during this period, described Adler and Friedjung as part of a Jewish intellectual grouping that possessed its own “goals of social and cultural change.” Beller writes that Adler’s politics was inflected through a Jewish liberal lens, in which “socialism, universalist and secularist, [was viewed as a] possible answer to the antisemitism of the other parties. … Adler early on decided to stick to the rules of Austrian constitutionalist politics to bring about the revolution peacefully.”[4]S. Beller, The Habsburg Monarchy (Cambridge University Press, 2018), 177. Adler, who had in any case earlier described nationalism as “tactless”, “madness,” and “based chiefly on envy, misunderstanding, and irrationality,” became an out and out Marxist overnight after leaving the nationalist organization, proving in one stroke the total insincerity of his Austrian “nationalism.”[5]S. Beller, Vienna and the Jews, 1867-1938: A Cultural History (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 162. See also A.G. Whiteside, Austrian National Socialism before 1918 (Martinus Nijhof, 1962), 67; and also J.M. Fischer, Gustav Mahler (Yale University Press, 2011), 344. Friedjung, meanwhile, ostensibly a historian, was later castigated as a fraud not only for his putative political beliefs, but for producing texts based on inauthentic historical materials. Along with Adler, Friedjung was viewed as promoting a republican, anti-aristocratic, anti-clerical, and multiethnic nationalism that diverged significantly from the Austrian nationalism of non-Jews.[6]R.S. Wistrich, The Jews of Vienna in the Age of Franz Joseph (Plunkett Lake Press, 2019). The eventual adoption of an Aryan Clause by Austrian nationalists was a response to the dilution of nationalism promoted by Adler and Friedjung and their very Jewish social circles (as well as Jewish movement predecessors like Ignaz Kuranda and Moritz Hartmann). To celebrate the removal of these influences, leading Austrian nationalist Georg von Schönerer published a new nationalist newspaper titled Undiluted German Words. The title says it all.

In short, Jews have been accused of “scheming” to subvert nationalist movements because they are very often proven to be doing just that. The problem with Cofnas is that he insists that these figures should still be considered nationalists, and that we have to ignore all evidence that they associated predominantly with Jewish milieus and often explicitly professed to seek after Jewish interests. Unfortunately, Cofnas doesn’t provide any meaningful reason for doing so, resorting repeatedly only to anecdotes like that of the first American Renaissance conference. In any case, what is the real substance of this anecdote?

Cofnas remarks that “four-out-of-ten invited speakers at the first American Renaissance conference in 1994 were Jewish (Lawrence Auster, Michael Levin, Rabbi Mayer Schiller, and Eugene Valberg) (American Renaissance 2017), and many of its most prominent supporters were Jewish.” He furthermore argues that this is evidence that “Jews have been overrepresented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements.” But the logic here surely breaks down when given even the briefest of considerations. These speakers were not representational, but invited. Their mere presence at the conference reflects in large part the tastes, preferences, and, I would argue, anxieties of the person or persons who invited them. In this regard, I believe it’s been a longstanding position of Jared Taylor that he not be seen as anti-Semitic, and Taylor has himself on many occasions expressed hostility to anti-Semitism. In his own words, Taylor has maintained that “American Renaissance has taken an implicit position on Jews by publishing Jewish authors and inviting Jewish speakers to AR conferences.” Could his selection of these speakers have been an over-compensation to fend off accusations of American Renaissance being anti-Semitic? I believe so. Does the skewed representation of 40% at this one conference indicate that Jews are necessarily over-represented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements? Only a fool would think so. Which brings us finally to biography, that important facet so often neglected by Cofnas. Auster, of course, was an adult convert to Christianity, which doesn’t prove anything conclusively but does suggest a weakened attachment to Jewishness. Moreover, Auster, despite acknowledging the Jewish role in the transformation of America, vigorously condemned MacDonald. All four figures are primarily concerned with race and IQ, a preoccupation of the almost explicitly philo-Semitic Jared Taylor (and one I personally find both distracting and overplayed in the context of broader civilizational collapse), rather than having ties to broader White nationalist ideology. Schiller was an almost comical inclusion given his lack of academic credentials and attachment to certain crackpot fringe ideologies. As for Cofnas’s claim that “many of [AmRen’s] most prominent supporters were Jewish,” I note that he provides no names or data for the claim, or any evidence that such support would amount to an overrepresentation commensurate with his default hypothesis.

Critics might accuse me of picking at a weak spot here in Cofnas’s work, but the point I’m trying to make is that, to Cofnas, the 1994 American Renaissance is a trump card that he sees as worth repeating every time he publishes a critique of MacDonald. I’m not highlighting the conference — Cofnas is, and quite shamelessly.

It’s my belief that Cofnas makes his arguments in bad faith, and I’m led to this belief primarily due to the slowly shifting sands of Cofnas’s own position and the fact he regularly makes claims unsubstantiated by evidence. Without any kind of broad or detailed survey, for example, Cofnas claims that “Jews have also been represented in the leadership of non-anti-Semitic right-wing movements.” Which movements? Which leaders? In which countries? Relative to what? In what time period? We don’t get any such information, just the claim. And where Cofnas does attempt to bridge the gap between claim and evidence, the result is nothing short of laughable. Take the following, from his 2021 Philosophia rehash:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is leading the charge to censor politically incorrect speech, but the most prominent pro-free speech organization in the US—the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)—was founded by Jews (Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate).

It’s worth remarking first that there’s no evidence suggesting that FIRE is the “most prominent pro-free speech organization” in the US, relative to other groups like the Institute for Free Speech, which wasn’t founded by Jews, has no Jewish board members, and does not restrict itself to higher education. FIRE is also certainly not more prominent than the American Civil Liberties Union, which also advocates on free speech issues. The more obvious problem, of course, is once again qualitative in that many “pro-free speech” groups dovetail ideologically with the ADL in many areas, and a lot of these organizations are inherently left-wing dating back to periods in which they fought against the censorship of pornographic or homosexual material (e.g. the Free Speech Coalition), for drug use, or for the rights of students to protest on campus. It goes without saying that the ADL is absolutely in favor of this kind of “free speech,” and that its primary concern is with White nationalist, and similar, content — something FIRE, or any of these groups, have yet to defend. Cofnas’s use of the anecdote of FIRE is interesting because of the (by now predicable) lack of biography for Kors and Silverglate (e.g., do they see a Jewish interest in free speech?), and the total lack of nuance or context in making a comparison between the ADL and FIRE. As with other examples produced above, we simply have an “argument by anecdote” in which an organization is inflated in prominence so that its small number of Jewish founders or members can be raised to the purely rhetorical position of overrepresentation, behind which there is no meaningful substance. The biography and intentions of these Jews doesn’t matter to Cofnas, nor does the huge disparity in Jewish support, material and/or ideological, between them and the ADL. It certainly doesn’t seem to matter to Cofnas that Silverglate is a lifelong leftist married to a dedicated Jewish feminist and AIDS activist. The only significant example of Kors engaging in racial issues is when he came to the defense of a University of Pennsylvania student accused of making racist remarks to a group of Black students. That student’s name was Eden Jacobowitz. Is Kors a dedicated conservative free speech activist? Or is he an ethnocentric Jew “looking out for his own”? Ultimately, when contrasted with Jewish wealth and support behind the ADL (unlike FIRE, an explicitly Jewish organization), it doesn’t really matter, because FIRE is utterly dwarfed by the Jewish behemoth and its unrelenting campaign to smother the freedoms of White Americans.

Shifting Sands

As stated above in relation to the so-called “default hypothesis,” Cofnas argues that, predominantly due to a higher than average IQ and a tendency toward urban living, Jews will naturally be over-represented in all intellectual movements and activities that are not overtly anti-Semitic. While Jews may be overrepresented in pro-immigration, pro-pluralism organizations and movements, the default hypothesis insists that they will also be overrepresented in nationalist, anti-immigration or restrictionist movements (that are not anti-Semitic) also. There is an inherent implication that these over-representations will be, more or less, to the same degree, and Cofnas, for the most part, refuses to discuss the matter in any serious way that might allow for, or explain, why any potential divergence in over-representation might occur. In his new piece for Philosophia, however, Cofnas inserts a minor qualification: “In recent history, Jewish involvement in politics has skewed left because a higher proportion of right-wing than left-wing movements were overtly anti-Semitic.” He also adds that his overall thesis

should not be misinterpreted as a claim that Jews are exactly the same as white gentiles, or that they’re just like high-IQ, urban white gentiles. All groups differ from each other in interesting ways, reflecting their evolutionary and cultural histories. But, in general, anything unusual about Jewish political behavior is mostly a predictable reaction to their historical circumstances.

From my discussion of Jewish involvement in refugee and migrant organizations, it should be clear that Jewish involvement in U.S. politics hasn’t merely “skewed” left, but has been overwhelmingly encamped in the left, at least since the late nineteenth century. That being said, there are clearly other questions arising even from this one sentence. What are the parameters of “recent history”? Since 1900? Since 1800? In what countries? Other questions quickly surface. Why is Jewish political involvement still “skewing” left even though we are constantly fed narratives of leftist anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism? Most important of all, the sentence marks a departure from Cofnas’s earlier statement that Jews would avoid specific movements due to anti-Semitism, and towards the implication that Jews are suspicious of right-wing movements in general over fears surrounding anti-Semitism on the Right — a concession that would all but render the “default hypothesis” redundant in any political or cultural context, and require several more layers of explanation. Any attempt to insist that Cofnas is still referring to the avoidance of specific movements would need to answer why Jews remain under-represented in non-anti-Semitic right wing movements like the NRA and the gun rights movement, as well as the pro-life movement and attempts to prevent same-sex marriage.

The tiny Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has a membership of just 7,000 with no paid staff and annual revenue of less than $130,000. Since members are not required to be Jewish, it would be reasonable to assume that the organization boasts fewer than 7,000 members in a Jewish population of 6 and 7 million. In other words, a Jewish crusade for gun freedom in America resonates with less than 0.1% of American Jews. The National Rifle Association has had only one Jewish President (Sandra Froman) since it was founded in 1871, and, as one commentator put it “the vast majority of American Jews and much of the organized Jewish community consistently support gun control measures. Hadassah, B’nai B’rith, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the American Jewish Committee and others have been essentially “blacklisted” by the National Rifle Association on its website.” There are apparently no Jews on the NRA Board of Directors. Interestingly, Froman, the NRA’s only Jewish President, could hardly be described as strongly identifying with Judaism or Jewishness. She told one interviewer that “her parents didn’t emphasize her Judaism. … She doesn’t remember the denomination of the synagogue near San Francisco where her family occasionally attended services and where she was married the first time. She speaks freely both of her respect for the Jewish spiritual tradition and of her lack of meaningful connection with it.”

By contrast, Jews are dominant in the fight to increase gun control. Jewish lawyers Robyn Thomas and Nina Vinik, executive director and senior counsel, respectively, of the Legal Community Against Violence, are quite prominent in lobbying for gun control legislation, and Thomas also acts as executive director for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Within these groups there’s often a crossover between lobbying for gun legislation and lobbying for hate/speech legalization, as evidenced by Giffords Law Center’s Ari Freilich, a Jewish lawyer who acts as State Policy Director and as a specialist in “hate crimes.” The strongest supporter of gun control measures in Connecticut in recent years is Jewish Senator Richard Blumenthal. The biggest gun control group in Pennsylvania is CeaseFirePA. The board of CeaseFirePA is dominated by Jews (around 80-90%) and includes such figures as Nancy Gordon, a member of the Jewish Social Policy Action Group, and Shira Goodman, Che Saitta-Zelterman and Fred Kaplan-Mayer. In New York, Michael Bloomberg formed and financed Everytown, a new gun control organization, and pledged $50 million to the cause of making it harder for citizens to purchase arms and ammunition. The Huffington Post reports that in California Dianne Feinstein has “long been one of the Senate’s strongest advocates for gun control.” In Michigan, Jewish Senator Carl Levin has been at the forefront of gun control efforts, earning him an “F” score from Gun Owners of America.

Again, in line with his “argument by anecdote” approach, Cofnas would likely balance this with the 0.1% Jews in the JPFO (“Jews are leaders in the pro-gun movement too!”) and insist that Jews have merely “skewed” left. Since no evidence has been brought to light that the gun freedom movement has been historically anti-Semitic, the “default hypothesis” is entirely inadequate to explain the balance of Jewish representation inside and outside the gun rights movement. The only reasonable conclusion would be that Jews are overwhelmingly suspicious of this predominantly White right-wing movement with strong roots in small-town and rural America—if not openly and intensely hostile to it and its members, and are correspondingly to be found in much larger numbers in those movements that restrict the freedoms or otherwise harm the interests of the White demographic (e.g., gun control and hate speech laws), than those movements that seek to improve them.

Similarly stark disparities can be found in other contemporary right-wing political and cultural movements with no history of anti-Semitism. Studies from the Pew Research Center show that Jews overwhelmingly (83%) support abortion rights (compared with 57% of the general population). In fact, Jews support abortion at a higher rate than any other religious group in America. The National Council of Jewish Women, a 126-year-old organization that helped establish some of the first birth control and abortion clinics across the country, considers reproductive rights a cornerstone issue and has publicly condemned the strict abortion bans recently handed down in Alabama and Mississippi. Cecily Routman, the founder of the tiny Jewish Pro-Life Foundation, the only such group within the American Jewish community, has said that her position is essentially “counter-cultural” within Judaism and that, after being horrified by a radio show on the details of abortion, was prompted to examine the Jewish role in what was happening in America.

“I knew very little, she said, “but what I learned horrified me. And I realized in my heart that it was a ghastly business and I didn’t understand how Jewish people had gotten so involved in it.” Jews were not only outspoken in favor of the right to choose, she said, but were also “charitable donors for Planned Parenthood, and hosting fundraisers for Planned Parenthood. I did not understand that.”

In the area of same-sex marriage, Pew Research Center found that 77% of Jews were in favor/strongly in favor, while a further 5% were not opposed. Even accounting for the explicitly Christian nature of many, but not all, of the major bodies opposed to abortion and the marriage of gays, no Jewish leaders or board members could be found in their ranks.

The fact that Jews don’t just “skew” left on social, cultural, and political issues like this, and in fact overwhelmingly take up dominant positions within the left while being almost totally absent from meaningful positions on the right, has a direct relation to Cofnas’s argument that Jews have avoided right-wing movements because of historical anti-Semitism. As mentioned above, there is no historical anti-Semitism in the gun freedom, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage movements. What Cofnas in fact appeals to with such a claim is a kind of chicken-and-egg scenario in which anti-Semitism is always said to precede Jewish political attitudes and activity when actually, as in the case of the subversives Adler and Friedjung mentioned above, the opposite is the case. In this light, the most surprising thing about Jewish activity against gun freedom, and on behalf of abortion and gay marriage, isn’t the simple fact of Jewish overrepresentation, but that this overrepresentation hasn’t already led to an increase in anti-Semitism on the American Right.

Cofnas’s attribution to Jewish political “skewing” is also an example of a common approach in Jewish apologetics within historiography and scholarship more generally — a tactic I’ve described as the “cropped timeline explanation.” When faced with an uncomfortable and unavoidable fact involving negative Jewish behavior (Leftism, usury, financial crime, pornography, etc.) the reader of the apologetic is encouraged to begin with assumptions of anti-Jewish prejudice, and to work exclusively from there. Jews are on the Left? The only explanation offered is that they were excluded from the Right. In historiography, we are often subjected to a process of historical gerrymandering. This most often involves beginning and ending all explanations for anti-Jewish animosity with a timeline most befitting the idea of blameless Jewish victimhood and predatory Europeans. Problems begin to arise, however, when the question is asked why Jews were excluded or viewed as socially or culturally oppositional in the first place. Here, “irrational prejudice” is the last resort, but beyond it, when faced with further interrogation of that idea and the even deeper historical context, nothing is there. One is confronted with blank stares, rhetorical dead ends, and a factual wasteland. The essays of Nathan Cofnas offer nothing more than this, which sits extremely uneasily alongside his admission that groups differ in “interesting ways, reflecting their evolutionary and cultural histories.” By reducing all nuances in Jewish political activity to the aggression of non-Jews, Cofnas makes the remarkable argument that where Jews are seen to cluster in a “positive” manner it is simply because they have a IQ and high ability, but where they cluster “negatively,” it is purely due to exclusion or prejudice. In either case, the assumption seems to be that Jews ultimately have no individual political inclinations of their own. By advancing such an argument, Cofnas is firmly within a dubious, and quite shamelessly deceptive, Jewish scholarly tradition.

Jewish Ethnocentrism

Cofnas rests his argument against MacDonald on three grounds: (a) the evidence suggests Jews are not particularly ethnocentric, (b) liberal Jews typically advocate similar policies for Jews/Israel and gentiles/gentile countries, and (c) the West was on a liberal trajectory with or without Jews, and Jews were not responsible for mass immigration to the US. All three arguments are fundamentally flawed, and are characterized in Cofnas’s presentation by the very features he claims to have found in MacDonald’s work, especially omission of contradictory evidence.

In regards to Jewish ethnocentrism, Cofnas is almost exclusively concerned with the subject of intermarriage. This is an important but not exclusive aspect of ethnocentrism, and Cofnas demonstrates no awareness of either the history of Jewish intermarriage and its impact on Jewish ethnocentrism (for example, by referencing a text like Todd Endelman’s Princeton-published Leaving the Jewish Fold, which I’ve reviewed here), or any of the major sociological studies of contemporary Jewish demography (for example, Oxford’s very comprehensive 2014 T he Social Scientific Study of Jewry: Sources, Approaches, Debates, or even Keren McGinty’s 2009 NYU-published Still Jewish: A History of Women and Intermarriage in America). In fact, Cofnas does not appear to have undertaken a serious survey of any of the relevant available scholarly literature, the most important of which is surely Bruce Phillips’s 2013 article in Contemporary Jewry “New Demographic Perspectives on Studying Intermarriage in the United States.”[7]Phillips, B.A. New Demographic Perspectives on Studying Intermarriage in the United States. Cont Jewry 33, 103–119 (2013). Phillips examined intermarriage data like that cited by Cofnas and found that

The study of Jewish intermarriage has largely ignored the measurement conventions prevalent in the field of demography such as using first marriages (as opposed to current marriages) and not controlling for mixed parentage. I re-analyze the NJPS 2000–2001 using first marriages and controlling for parentage and find evidence that intermarriage has leveled off among single ancestry Jews [as opposed to mixed-ancestry Jews]. Jewish intermarriage is placed in an American context by (1) putting in Kalmijn’s conceptual schema and (2) using the odds-ratio to compare intermarriage in controlling for group size. Single ancestry Jews are surprisingly endogamous compared with other groups in America. [emphasis added]

Nor is Cofnas concerned with the actual lived experience of intermarriage and its relationship to ethnocentrism, since he focuses only on a limited set of raw numbers and ignores a number of pieces of research on intermarried Jews that essentially contradict his argument by insisting that Jewish continuity is certainly not in danger.[8]See, for example, Sasson, T., Aronson, J.K., Chertok, F. et al. Millennial Children of Intermarriage: Religious Upbringing, Identification, and Behavior Among Children of Jewish and Non-Jewish Parents. Cont Jewry 37, 99–123 (2017). Cofnas, for example, argues that

The anti-Jewish narrative says that liberal Jews are highly ethnocentric compared to other groups, particularly white gentiles. This claim is not supported by Jews having an intermarriage rate that, combined with low fertility, will lead the liberal Jewish population to nearly disappear in another generation or two.

Essentially, the argument made by Cofnas is that (American, liberal) Jews cannot be ethnocentric to a stronger than average degree because they are manifestly breeding themselves out of existence. The first issue here is that MacDonald’s thesis of the transformative effects of Jewish influence documented in CofC depends on showing that particular intellectual or political movements were dominated by individuals who identified as Jews and saw their activities as advancing Jewish interests; he notes that ethnic networking (a proxy for ethnocentrism) was highly characteristic of these movements. The percentage of intermarrying Jews in 2021 or any other period is completely irrelevant to his thesis. Nor is it relevant to understanding ethnic commitments, including intermarriage, of the activist Jewish community at different historical periods which is what a serious account of Jewish influence would focus on. As Endelman has pointed out, in many contexts and periods, Jews have often witnessed “drift and defection” from Judaism and the Jewish community by sections of the community. Over historical time, however, it’s clear that this has not harmed Jewish continuity and may actually, by shedding less committed elements, have strengthened the ethnocentric core of the group.

Complaints about intermarriage aside, the overall demographic picture of the Jewish Diaspora is one of growth. With Israel acting as a magnet for the most ethnocentric Jews, it should come as no surprise that Pew estimate that “over the next few decades, Israel [where intermarriage is essentially outlawed] is projected to pass the United States and become, by a sizable margin, the country with the largest Jewish population.” Attempting to discuss Jewish intermarriage in the context of ethnocentrism without taking into consideration the Jews as a whole, or the role of Israel, is simply disingenuous. As MacDonald noted in his first reply to Cofnas, a major goal of Zionism during the early decades of the twentieth century was to prevent intermarriage and assimilation (Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 5), a program which has indeed been successful in Israel (e.g., Pew Research, 2016). Shulamit Reinharz, for example, in Jewish Intermarriage around the World, has stressed that, in the context of Jewish intermarriage, “the growth of Israeli society constitutes a significant factor in recreating a Jewish ‘ethnic core’ characterised by very low frequencies of intermarriage.”[9]Sergio DellaPergola (ed), Jewish Intermarriage Around the World (Routledge, 2017). And whatever American Reform Jews think about marriage, they constitute only around three percent of Israeli Jews.

Crucially, however, Pew insist that at least 37% of the world’s Jews will continue to live in North America — hardly the near disappearance suggested by Cofnas. In fact, Pew predict only a modest decline for Jews in America: “both in total number (from 6 million in 2010 to 5.9 million in 2050) and as a share of the region’s population (from 1.8% in 2010 to 1.4% in 2050).” For the sake of comparison, the White share of the youth population in America has declined 70% since 1990. Although not quite at replacement level, the fertility level of Jewish women in America (1.9), remains higher than that of White women (1.6). Pew note that even in Europe, “Jews have a slightly higher fertility rate than Europeans overall.” The correct way of looking at the bigger picture of Jewish intermarriage may be that while ethnic drift and miscegenation are becoming increasingly common for all ethnic groups under the weight of globalism, Jews have been remarkably insulated from its most damaging effects through cultural cohesion, the nature of Jewish identity, and their possession of an ethnically defined nation-state.

It should be added that intermarriage eludes simple or generalized interpretations, such as that offered by Cofnas. At the risk of falling into Cofnas’s habit of using anecdotes, one need only look at the intermarriage of Sacha Baron-Cohen and Isla Fisher on the one hand, and that of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan on the other. In the first instance, Baron-Cohen is a strongly identified Orthodox and Zionist Jew, who married an ethnically European woman. Fisher, however, was made to undergo the full conversion process, with the understanding that any children in the marriage would be raised as strongly identified Jews. Baron-Cohen continues to maintain an active role with the ADL, and to lobby for speech laws and the censorship of technology. One of the ADL and Baron-Cohen’s frequent targets is Mark Zuckerberg, who is presumably viewed as a weakly identified Jew because of his Reform upbringing and his marriage to an Asian Buddhist who did not undergo a conversion process, as well as Zuckerberg’s perceived laxity in suppressing pro-White content on Facebook and associated platforms. The point here is that intermarriage can have very different real-life expressions, ranging from a relaxing of Jewish identification to the continuity of very intensive Jewish identity. It is also worth pointing out that in both cases, Jewish males have taken non-Jewish wives, a direction that dominates the overall picture of intermarriage in North America.[10]See, for example, Brym, R., & Lenton, R. (2020). Jewish Religious Intermarriage in Canada. Canadian Jewish Studies / Études Juives Canadiennes, 30, 67–82. See also, Sergio DellaPergola (ed), Jewish Intermarriage Around the World (Routledge, 2017). Since Jewish identity is traditionally perceived as following the maternal line, it should be clear that this tendency is yet another factor mitigating intermarriage somewhat from the perspective of Jewish ethnocentrism.

It goes without saying that Cofnas omits almost every other aspect of ethnocentrism, perhaps most important of which is a sense of ethnic pride. Pew, for example, found that “94% of U.S. Jews (including 97% of Jews by religion and 83% of Jews of no religion) say they are proud to be Jewish. Three-quarters of U.S. Jews (including 85% of Jews by religion and 42% of Jews of no religion) also say they have “a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people.””

To conclude this section, we can only disagree with Cofnas’s assertion that “the evidence suggests Jews are not particularly ethnocentric,” because his evidence is either thin or non-existent. Rather, we must agree with Phillips, and MacDonald for that matter, that “single ancestry Jews are surprisingly endogamous compared with other groups in America,” and, furthermore, that Jews are surprisingly endogamous and ethnocentric compared with other groups globally.

Hypocrisy

Cofnas’s rhetorical footing on the issue of liberal Jewish hypocrisy seems equally unsteady. It’s worth reflecting first on the fact that Gallup have identified American Jews as “the most liberal of any major religious group we identify.” As discussed above, American Jews have been dominant in leading the cause of multiculturalism and immigration, abortion, and gay marriage. By contrast, however, these same Jews have overwhelmingly supported Israel, despite its oppressive actions against minorities, and also despite immigration policies that uniquely favor the migration of those with Jewish ancestry. Gallup point out that

The available data shows that about nine in 10 American Jews are more sympathetic to Israel than to the Palestinians. (That compares to about six in 10 of all Americans.) Additionally, 95% of Jews have favorable views of Israel, while 10% have favorable views of the Palestinian Authority — significantly more pro-Israel than the overall national averages of 71% favorable views of Israel and 21% favorable views of the Palestinian Authority. Research conducted in 2013 by Pew showed that 76% of Jews (identified by religion) said they were at least somewhat emotionally attached to Israel. In addition, almost half said that caring about Israel is an essential part of being Jewish (with most of the rest saying it is important although not essential) and nearly half reported that they had personally traveled to Israel.

Cofnas makes much of literature produced by the Union for Reform Judaism, and claims that it is working to “diversify” the Jewish community. As one example he quotes the following:

We’re a global, multiracial people that’s growing more racially and ethnically diverse through interfaith and interracial marriage, conversion, and adoption. In the United States, February is Black History Month. It is one among many opportunities for us to acknowledge and reflect upon our collective racial and ethnic diversity, and learn more about the experiences of Jews of African-American descent in particular.

The problem, of course, is that this is simply rhetoric, and Jews of all denominations have for centuries tried to present themselves as a religious rather than an ethnic group. The simple fact of the matter is that Jews promoting diversity in the United States, or Europe, will first and foremost have their greatest impact in that locality. Quite frankly, what they have to say about Israel, whether sincere or not, is of little consequence to Israel, and is unlikely to have serious effects there. This is especially the case when their financial, political, and moral support for Israel remains, for all intents and purposes, unconditional. To put it another way, Jews universally promoting diversity, so long as they are in a society they want to see ethically diluted and not Israel itself; this will produce more gains than losses.

Cofnas disputing the issue of hypocrisy, highlights some American Jewish support the case of the Ethiopian Jews in Israel, and refuses MacDonald’s contention that since the Ethiopians “constitute only a little over 2% of the population … [they] may not be seen as a serious threat to the demographic status quo.” Cofnas insists that this would be like “a Jewish organization want[ing] to bring seven million Ethiopians to the US. … Seven million constitute only a little over 2% of the US population, and thus may not be seen as a serious threat to the demographic status quo.” Certainly, if looked at purely in terms of percentages, one could make some kind of argument of equivalence, though it’s clear that in any context an influx of seven million and an influx of around 125,000 are still significantly different in short-term and long-term consequences. Even aside from that, however, Cofnas ignores certain crucial aspects of the issue under discussion. First, American Jews have not been as supportive of Ethiopian Jews as Cofnas suggests [it’s also worth remarking he produces no numerical or polling data at all on this subject]. The Jerusulem Post, for example, has pointed out that “the 14,000 Beta Israel remaining in Ethiopia … have not received one penny from Jewish Federations to help them resist the onslaught of the coronavirus. Not one penny. And it is impossible to ignore race as a factor.” The piece continues,

The Jewish Federations has not had a serious discussion of the community at its general assembly for the past 10 years. The Conference of Presidents travels all over the world on its yearly jaunts; it has yet to visit Ethiopia. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, American Jewry’s institutional relief organization, says it runs programs for Jews in 70 countries. But there is not a single dollar, not a single program for the Beta Israel, even though JDC provides assistance in Ethiopia to non-Jews. (By way of contrast, the Jewish Agency recently donated funds to for anti-coronavirus activities in Ethiopia). No official representative of the major Orthodox, Conservative or Reform communal or rabbinic organization organizations visit Ethiopia over the past two decades, a stunning contrast to the many rabbinic figures who visited Soviet Jews in the 70s and 80s.

Again, the point here is that, rhetoric aside, in terms of tangible action American Jews are intensely involved in lobbying for migration and liberalism within the United States (“a nation of immigrants!”) where Jewish activism has played a major role in around 65 million immigrants having arrived since the 1965 immigration law— while being completely unconcerned with ensuring the same “values” are embraced in Israel (“the Jewish nation!”). American Jews overwhelmingly support Israel even when it embodies those things most hated when expressed among Whites (ethnocentrism, patriotism, militarism, protectionism, and pride of history and identity). American Jews are not dominating migration bodies dedicated to opening Israel’s borders to refugees. American Jews are not creating organizations everywhere with the goal of disarming Israel’s citizens. American Jews are not pressuring tech giants to restrict the ability of Israelis to speak their minds freely. All of these actions are taking place in America, and as long as this disparity in action remains in place, not even the most flowing rhetoric will disguise the hypocrisy of America’s ‘liberal’ Jews.

Multiculturalism

We come finally to the issue of multiculturalism and liberalism. Cofnas insists that “the West was on a liberal trajectory with or without Jews, and Jews were not responsible for mass immigration to the US.” He denies that “Jews were a “necessary condition” (to use MacDonald’s phrase) for the triumph of liberal multiculturalism.” Rather, Cofnas insists that “many of the ideas [MacDonald] attributes to Jews were given their modern formulation by Rousseau and other gentile intellectuals in the eighteenth century, and first implemented in the (gentile-led) French Revolution. The origins of race denial, blank slatism, Noble Savage envy, and socialism go back centuries or even millennia.”

This represents a general confusion of concepts and a kind of counter-factual history. A “liberal trajectory” need not have resulted in mass immigration or mass demographic decline on one’s own nation, for example. The Enlightenment may have given rise to hostility towards monarchy, but it also gave rise to race science. The modern multicultural state that we see today cannot be neatly traced to the ideas of Rousseau, or to socialism; indeed, any serious analysis of the trajectory of American liberalism must deal with the period of ethnic defense from around 1890 through the 1924 and 1952 immigration laws (the latter law passed over President Truman’s veto by well over two-thirds of Congress) (pp. 291–304 of MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition). And it must evaluate the effectiveness of the intense Jewish opposition to those laws and the role of Jewish activism in enacting the 1965 law.

Rather, there have been successive legal as well as philosophical changes across the West over a number of centuries which have cumulatively resulted in the widening of the concept of citizenship, the end point of which has been the emergence of the bureaucratic state in which belonging is dictated solely by a passport. The historical record is fairly clear that in terms of these legal changes, Jews have very often been the cause or instigators of legal changes designed to introduce “tolerance” into the law. Following the French Revolution, for example, the most radical change in the make-up of French society was the admission of the Jews to French citizenship. This admission followed a period of assessment during which a ‘Grand Sanhedrin’ of Jewish notables gave dishonest answers to Napoleon’s chief advisor.[11]E. Benbassa, The Jews of France: A History from Antiquity to the Present (Princeton University Press, 2001), p.89 Overnight, what constituted a “Frenchman” suddenly changed, with repercussions first throughout the French Empire and, later, through Europe and America.

Similarly, in relation to nineteenth-century Britain, Dennis Grube remarks on “how strongly the conservative British establishment clung on to what it considered to be the Protestant national character. To make British laws, one had to be British in more than citizenship.”[12]Grube, D. (2007), Religion, Power and Parliament: Rothschild and Bradlaugh Revisited. History, 92: 21-38. On this topic see also, Jarin, Alexander W. “Granting of Political and Human Rights: A Comparison of Jewish and Catholic Emancipation in the United Kingdom.” (2015); Wendehorst, Stephan, ed. The emancipation of Catholics, Jews and Protestants: minorities and the nation state in nineteenth-century Europe. Manchester University Press, 1999. This changed fundamentally with Lionel de Rothschild’s attempt to enter Parliament in 1847. When the attempt created a national debate about the desirability of Jews having full legal rights on a par with Englishmen, the Anglo-Jewish elite threw its weight and influence behind “Dissenter” groups and lobbied for “Catholic Emancipation” in an effort to broaden the concept of citizenship enough that “Jewish Emancipation” would be brought a step closer. Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), often held up as the first “assimilated” European Jew, was one of the first true open borders advocates when he asked, “For how long, for how many millennia, must this distinction between the owners of the land and the stranger continue? Would it not be better for mankind and culture to obliterate this distinction?”[13]M. Mendelssohn, “Anmerkung zu des Ritters Michaelis Beurtheilung des ersten Teils von Dohm, über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden,” (1783), Moses Mendelssohn gesammelte Schriften, ed. G. B. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1843), vol. 3, 367. But it was the method of the Anglo-Jewish elite in the middle of the nineteenth century that began in earnest a pattern of Jewish support for what would become known as “multiculturalism” in order to smooth their own access to influence and to improve their feeling of security. Nowhere is this more starkly apparent than in the case of the British-Jewish politician Barbara Roche, “a descendant of East End Jews,” described by Douglas Murray in The Strange Death of Europe as a chief architect of multicultural Britain under Tony Blair. Roche dismissed all her critics as “racists,” “criticised colleagues for being too white,” and “believed that immigration was only ever a good thing.” After ten years of her highly influential immigration reforms, Roche beamed to an interviewer: “I love the diversity of London. I just feel comfortable.”

Kevin MacDonald’s work has clearly demonstrated that Jewish groups organized, funded and performed most of the work aimed at combating America’s 1924 and 1952 immigration laws, toppling them finally in 1965. Brenton Sanderson has shown that Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism were pivotal in ending the White Australia policy — a policy change opposed by the vast majority of the Australian population. Jews were conspicuous in the dramatic changes in Britain’s citizenship, race, and speech laws from the 1950s to the 1980s. A Jewish Minister for Justice transformed Ireland’s citizenship process, opening the country up to Africans and Pakistanis. Today, Jews dominate the mass migration NGO scene, demonstrably holding executive roles at the International Rescue Committee, International Refugee Assistance Project, the Immigrant’s Rights division of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Immigration Justice Center, Equal Justice Works, The Immigrant Defense Project, National Immigration Law Center, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, the Asylum Advocacy Project, Refugee Council USA, the New York Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, The Immigrant Learning Center, the Open Avenues Foundation, the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation (PAIR) Project, Central American Legal Assistance, Halifax Refugee Clinic, and the UK Refugee Law Initiative. The migration policy advisor for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (Sara Feldman) is not a Catholic, but a Jewish woman.

The modern Open Borders movement is demonstrably Jewish in leadership and origins, beginning in the early 2000s with the publication of British-Jewish intellectual Steve Cohen’s No One Is Illegal: Asylum and Immigration Control, Past and Present (2003). Cohen, who died in 2009, had by then worked for three decades as an immigration lawyer in Manchester, where he set up the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, and participated in Anti-Deportation Campaigns. He was a member of the International Marxist Group (IMG) from 1968 until the end of 1974, though he appears to have been very publicly engaged in Far Left politics until he was beaten unconscious by British Nationalists who broke up one of his meetings in 1976. Thereafter his public involvement appears to have lessened and took on a more reclusive aspect. Cohen was a member of the Jewish Socialist Group for most of his life, and he was a quintessential Jewish intellectual in that he was both prolific and intense, writing books, manifestos, and pamphlets about anti-Semitism, socialism, immigration, borders and the welfare state. In his 2003 No One Is Illegal manifesto Cohen asserted that immigration controls “are inherently racist in that they are based on the crudest of all nationalisms — namely the assertion that the British have a franchise on Britain.” Far from declining with the death of Steve Cohen, the Jewish prominence in the Open Borders movement has perhaps become even more acute in recent years. The range of theory underpinning the effort has also slightly diversified. George Mason University professor Bryan Caplan is the founder of openborders.info and is the most visible North American figure calling for an end to immigration control. Caplan even wrote an article for TIME in which he argued that “instead of redoubling our efforts to curtail immigration, we should return to the historic American policy of open borders—admitting everyone eager to come build a better life for themselves.”

Did Cohen or Caplan ever advise the same things for Israel that they recommended for Britain and America? Not once.

Conclusion

Much more can be said about Nathan Cofnas’s errors, omissions, and distortions, but they all more or less follow the patterns outlined above. We should remember, of course, that Cofnas is an ethnocentric Jew engaged in the denial of ethnocentrism in an effort to defend his people. He claims, in his own way, to represent a kind of authentic ‘race realism.’ Like so many antecedents, however, he’s just a familiar fly in the ointment whose defense of his group ultimately boils down to blaming White oppression for the political peculiarities of his co-ethnics. As far as Jewish apologetics go, his work is far from the best I’ve encountered, and its repetitiveness is probably due more to an attempt to improve his publication count in the hopes of securing academic employment rather than genuine conviction. And what easier way to get published than bashing “anti-Jewish narratives” in an Israeli journal? I suppose we should congratulate him, though, on finally getting his doctorate. A newly minted Jewish PhD making his mark by condemning anti-Semitism — just what the world needs.

Notes

[1] Cofnas, N. (2018). Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: A critical analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s theory. Human Nature, 29(2), 134–156.

[2] MacDonald, K. (2018a). Reply to Nathan Cofnas The Unz Review (March 20, 2018); MacDonald, K. Second Reply to Nathan Cofnas, Revision of April 19, 2018

[3] “Hans Eysenck’s Controversial Career,” The Lancet, Vol. 376, August 7 2010, 407.

[4] S. Beller, The Habsburg Monarchy (Cambridge University Press, 2018), 177.

[5] S. Beller, Vienna and the Jews, 1867-1938: A Cultural History (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 162. See also A.G. Whiteside, Austrian National Socialism before 1918 (Martinus Nijhof, 1962), 67; and also J.M. Fischer, Gustav Mahler (Yale University Press, 2011), 344.

[6] R.S. Wistrich, The Jews of Vienna in the Age of Franz Joseph (Plunkett Lake Press, 2019).

[7] Phillips, B.A. New Demographic Perspectives on Studying Intermarriage in the United States. Cont Jewry 33, 103–119 (2013).

[8] See, for example, Sasson, T., Aronson, J.K., Chertok, F. et al. Millennial Children of Intermarriage: Religious Upbringing, Identification, and Behavior Among Children of Jewish and Non-Jewish Parents. Cont Jewry 37, 99–123 (2017).

[9] Sergio DellaPergola (ed), Jewish Intermarriage Around the World (Routledge, 2017).

[10] See, for example, Brym, R., & Lenton, R. (2020). Jewish Religious Intermarriage in Canada. Canadian Jewish Studies / Études Juives Canadiennes, 30, 67–82. See also, Sergio DellaPergola (ed), Jewish Intermarriage Around the World (Routledge, 2017).

[11] E. Benbassa, The Jews of France: A History from Antiquity to the Present (Princeton University Press, 2001), p.89

[12] Grube, D. (2007), Religion, Power and Parliament: Rothschild and Bradlaugh Revisited. History, 92: 21-38. On this topic see also, Jarin, Alexander W. “Granting of Political and Human Rights: A Comparison of Jewish and Catholic Emancipation in the United Kingdom.” (2015); Wendehorst, Stephan, ed. The emancipation of Catholics, Jews and Protestants: minorities and the nation state in nineteenth-century Europe. Manchester University Press, 1999.

[13] M. Mendelssohn, “Anmerkung zu des Ritters Michaelis Beurtheilung des ersten Teils von Dohm, über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden,” (1783), Moses Mendelssohn gesammelte Schriften, ed. G. B. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1843), vol. 3, 367.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Anti-Semitism, Jews, Kevin MacDonald 
Hide 139 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. In relation to the NRA, it appears that in my claim there are currently no Jews on the NRA board I linked to the wrong site (which discusses older results). I intended to link to the 2020 results, and had discounted Todd Rathner due to lack of clear biographical information. He appears to be the only Jew. There are currently no other Jews among elected NRA board members.

    https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2020/7/10/2020-nra-board-election-results

    The Forward has claimed slightly higher representation in previous years but they provide no names and I believe they have included people they think have Jewish surnames but which are in fact either English or German last names (e.g. John Cushman III who is of Anglo stock, and also Bachenberg). Of course I’m fine with there being a handful of Jews on the NRA board because such numbers aren’t enough to rescue Cofnas’s default hypothesis. The disparity of representation is too great on either side of the debate, as it is also with immigration, abortion, and gay marriage.

    It’s worth recapping Cofnas’s major errors:

    He’s claimed MacDonald has omitted data, when the data is clearly in MacDonald’s text.

    He’s claimed people like Eysenck as right-wing Jews even when they are of only partial Jewish ancestry, weren’t raised Jewish, where they convert to another religion, where they marry a non-Jew, and/or explicitly express no connection to Jewishness.

    He’s failed to test his own default hypothesis.

    His default hypothesis fails every test it’s subjected to in terms of non-anti-Semitic right wing movements (e.g. migration, gun rights, abortion, gay marriage.)

    He relies extremely heavily on anecdotes rather than surveys of historical or scholarly literature, academic biography, or systematic demographic data, using a single 1994 conference to make the argument that Jews throughout “recent history” have been over-represented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements.

    He’s claimed American Jews are interbreeding themselves out of existence, and uses this as proof of lack of ethnocentrism, when professional demographers have demonstrated single-parentage Jews in America are marrying among themselves at “surprising” levels when compared to other ethnic groups in America.

    He says American Jews are approaching near disappearance, when demographers show American Jews will experience only minimal decline in the context of overall Jewish global growth.

    He says American Jews aren’t hypocrites on race, when their major organizations haven’t bothered with the Ethiopian Jews in decades.

    He claims Jews have no special relationship or necessary relationship with multiculturalism when Jews are clearly both actively and passively linked to the historical evolution of multicultural concepts of citizenship, and continue to be massively over-represented in Western refugee and migrant lobbies.

    Its worth mentioning that Cofnas quite literally rests his case against Mcdonald on these badly flawed arguments, and that’s he’s now repeated them several times, with a thin veneer of academic respectability, mainly by publishing in journals with quick acceptance times (I. E. low ranked, poorly regarded journals with weak peer review). Cofnas’s error-filled “The Anti-Jewish Narrative” was accepted and published online within about three months – the time it normally takes a high-level journal to merely respond with initial comments/feedback, with publication following a year (sometimes more) later.

  2. Here, Lieberman makes the case that this is incorrect because MacDonald hasn’t taken into account Jewish emigrants. Again, to be absolutely clear, Lieberman is unhappy that in a discussion of loyalty to the Communist regime among Jews in Poland, MacDonald is not discussing Jews who emigrated. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence sees no contradiction in MacDonald’s treatment of the subject here. MacDonald’s argument is primarily that Jews are highly ethnocentric and are flexible strategists in pursuing their interests.

    Only got here before I got to your first nonsense.

    And only adjectives came before it.

    MacDonald is claiming that Jews were flexible strategists by being loyal to communism. His evidence was Jewish pro-Communism in Poland after 1945. Yet two thirds of Jews left and we can assume those were the anti-Communist ones. This means that the pro-Communism of the remaining Jews is far better explained by selection effects than MacDonald’s mild paranoid schizophrenia.

    Fun

    • Replies: @Andrew Joyce
  3. @Not Only Wrathful

    This a weak concern troll. Also repetitive, since a look through your past comments shows that accusing people of paranoid schizophrenia is something of a fixation to you. You might want to get that looked at.

    I wouldn’t assume those who left were anti-Communist, or least not only anti-Communist. My own perspective is they were probably more likely anti-Polish, or afraid of the Poles and a furtherance or continuity of anti-Jewish hostility (this is well documented in the historical literature). There were also strong pull factors for Israel, as opposed to push factors from Poland – safety, autonomy, a national vision, fresh start etc. It’s interesting that more Jews emigrated to Israel from Muslim countries between 1948 and 1952 than did from Soviet satellites, so the picture is probably not simply pro- or anti-communist.

    I also wouldn’t generalize about the intentions or ambitions of those who stayed. One could surmise that they were at least to some degree entwined with the Communist elite, and therefore had a higher sense of personal safety or authority. I don’t think MacDonald has ever made the argument that Jews were committed and ideologically-loyal Communists but rather that they viewed it as a useful tool, both individually and, at times but not always, at group level. Tools vary in their usefulness depending on context and who’s using them. That’s all the selection effect you need, and it’s still within the bounds of his thesis.

    The real point, of course, is that Lieberman accused MacDonald of not mentioning Jewish migration from Poland, when MacDonald clearly wrote that most Polish Jews migrated to Israel. It’s a false accusation, and it’s been repeated many times. You don’t seem to have an answer to this, and so complain about adjectives and employ high school logic and a single sentence to explain complex history. Fun.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  4. @Andrew Joyce

    Your long blocks of text betray desperation. The desperation to run from the fact that the “Jew” who you obsess over oppressing you is you, and has always been you.

    You have no sense of authority. Just pain hidden behind endless abstract rationalisation and footnotes. You torture yourself and wonder why you feel tortured.

    It reminds me of a girl chasing a guy who doesn’t get her. You can point out why it won’t work in a million different ways, but every time she’ll just pause and then come up with a self-deception that allows her to cling onto her fantasy. I suppose you need to run your full path, but goodness, is your path an ugly one. You have my full compassion for what you feel you need to undergo.

    My advice is that you just be honest with yourself about exactly where your ideological struggle ends and sit with that without judgement. Perhaps then you’ll be released (-;

  5. Mack2 says:

    Cofnas almost two years ago:

    I’m happy to debate people on the alt-right, and many alt-righters did read my paper. I almost always answer questions in tweets/DMs. But I wouldn’t appear in a podcast with Enoch/Striker since they are insincere and would just make a mockery of intelligent discussion.

    Some combination of the following: (1) They didn’t read my paper. (2) They accepted MacDonald’s misrepresentation that my paper consisted in pointing out some counterexamples to the trend he identified, rather than showing that there were problems with *MacDonald’s own examples*.

    (3) Assuming my argument against MacDonald was convincing, people who for years have been interpreting the world through the lens of his theory are unlikely to change their worldview immediately. For most people to radically change their worldview they need to be faced with a string of serious anomalies that they can’t make sense of over a period of time.

    (4) Some alt-righters accept that I identified serious problems with MacDonald’s scholarship, but they say that they continue to dislike Jews anyway. So at least some alt-rights changed their minds about MacDonald without changing their basic attitude regarding the “JQ.

    I smell a rat. These alt-rightists were supposedly so stubborn and irrational in their dislike and distrust of Jews that they couldn’t be reasoned out of it even when presented with worldview-shattering evidence — yet they were open-minded and rational enough to read your critique in the first place and find it convincing even though you are Jewish. Assuming these individuals are really alt-rightists and not just trolls or fans of yours (or perhaps a figment of your imagination), what problems specifically did they have with Kevin MacDonald’s theory? And did they read his replies, or Edward Dutton’s or Andrew Joyce’s for that matter? Given the strength of their arguments, these should have more than satisfied anyone whose mind had been so “poisoned” against the Jews. And to be frank, the fact that you have been so intellectually dishonest from the start (as detailed by Joyce above) makes me doubt the anecdote even more.

    Here’s an anecdote for you: I was a “Holocaust denier” for years in my younger and more naive days, but changed my opinion about Treblinka and other camps after reading David Cole’s reply to Ron Unz. While this ultimately did little to alter my view on the JQ, it did disabuse me of an ideological dogma which functioned as a kind of worldview in itself, one which I was very reluctant but forced to give up in the face of (as far as I can tell) incontrovertible evidence; and this dramatic change of mind occurred almost immediately, not over a period of time. That David Cole was Jewish and his reply was peppered with ad hominem attacks didn’t matter, because unlike yours his argument actually held water.

    Count me as one of those “open-minded anti-Semites” who bothered to read your replies, but remains unconvinced by your “in default” hypothesis. Try harder.

  6. Anon[363] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mack2

    Yeah, I agree with you.

    One of the main problems with Jewish people like Cofnas, on the “right,” is just that Js are so clearly on the left. Just look at voting patterns! Read their columns in America’s opinion magazines and in newpapers! Honestly Steve Sailer’s blog, where he puts these things on display, without any obvious anti-semitic spin, is as much evidence we need to confirm the general frustration that the right has with Js. But then, what Js do is little different than what all minorities do.

    The KMac “group evolutionary strategy” is a little tired, though. Nation-states are group strategies, and sometimes empires. Those creatures who are not engaging in group strategies are always engaging in individual strategies. These things are trivial, and mean little. The idea that J people push the “left” for their own good is not so interesting; once again, all minorities do.

    The more interesting critiques are those from Guyenot. Critiques of the religion itself.

    • Disagree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Bert
    , @Thomasina
  7. Thing is:

    Were Joyce’s arguments (waaay) better than Cofnas’s? Yes.
    Is Cofnas’s hypothesis that weak? No, his arguments can certainly be bettered! Here’s:

    (P.S.: However, I actually believe MacDonald’s main points are mostly correct.)

    Jewish representation in (Contemporary) White Nationalism:

    Jared Taylor once did a survey, in the ‘90s, of his readers – and, if I’m not mistaken, about 4% of them were Jewish, Jews are around 2% of America’s population! Hence, TWICE as much!
    Surely, it’d never reach 40% (i.e. the amount of Jews who spoke at the 1st AmRen conference), but the number of Jews could indeed go significantly up, if
    I) If AmRen had more publicity – especially if that ‘publicity’ were in a positive light;
    II) if Jews weren’t suspicious of White Nationalism having, even if implicitly, traces of anti-Semitism.

    Two afterthoughts:
    I) Perhaps the number of Jews in White Nationalism being so small has a SIMPLER explanation (i.e. one that hasn’t anything to do with ‘anti-Semitism’): and it’s the same reason that there are NO Jews in ‘Japanese Nationalism’ (!) i.e. Jews, deep-down, don’t see themselves as ‘White’?
    II) A cynic could say this about ‘White Nationalist’ Jews: they evaluated the chances and there’s indeed the possibility White Nationalism will win, hence they want a White Nationalism that welcomes Jews.

    Jewish representation in (Classical & Contemporary) Racialism:

    (Firstly, I’m just using the word ‘racialism’ for simplicity’s sake.)

    Just like most Jews who have spoken at AmRen weren’t White Nationalists but rather racialists, perhaps the same is true for its Jewish readers?
    I can only think of ONE (P.S.: I’m definitely NOT an expert here) so-called “classical” (meaning: back when racialism hadn’t a stigma attached to it) Jewish racialist: Cesare Lombroso. However, nowadays there are many, many Jews in racialism! (Yes, still: Jews are well more overrepresented in ‘race denialism’ than racialism.)

    P.S.: I can only think of TRHEE Jewish White Nationalists: Lawrence Auster, that Rabbi (can Wikipedia be trusted? Wikipedia says that Rabbi is a ‘White Nationalist’) and Michael Levin.

    Jewish representation in Paleo-Conservatism/Paleo-Libertarianism:

    Both of these movements are known for ‘anti-immigration’ sentiments.
    Jews are definitely overrepresented in Paleo-Libertarianism: its founder, Murray Rothbard – and Ilana Mercer, that I can think of. (Walter Block is NOT a paleo-libertarian, I wouldn’t think.)
    In Paleo-Conservatism I can think of two Jews: Paul Gottfried and Carl Horowitz – but, as Andrew Joyce argues, qualitative data is maybe MORE important than quantitative data: what sort-of Jew is Paul Gottfried? Is he very attached to Jewish religion/peoplehood – or is his more Eysenck?

    Jewish representation at VDare.com:

    Cofnas mentions AmRen, not sure why, then, he doesn’t mention VDare…
    I haven’t done the maths properly, but I guess VDare has 10 regular writers: hence, Jews are overrepresented at VDare’s regular writers – Edwin S. Rubenstein.

    Jews and the pro-gun/anti-gun debate:

    Joyce’s weakest point. Joyce makes it sound like Jews are more anti-gun than they actually are, frankly.
    My explanation: for whatever reason(s), when it comes to guns, Jews simply defend their pro-gun views as individuals and not as Jews. Look:
    Conservatism, Inc. is pro-gun – and it has many Jews; Libertarianism is also pro-gun and, likewise, it has many Jews.

    Jews and the Gay Marriage debate:

    Many elements in the ‘Dissident Right’ seem to believe more-or-less in the following: “Jews are pro-Gay Marriage because Gay Marriage harms Jews’ host nations”
    Firstly, let’s compare apples to apples: since most Jews in America are secular and Ashkenazi, I’d like to see how – specifically! – secular Ashkenazi Jews in Israel compare to the American ones regarding Gay Marriage.

    Also: I can think of a non-hypocritical reason why secular Ashkenazi Jews are anti-Gay Marriage for Israel but not America: these nations were founded on different principles – in America there’s Separation of Church and State, but Israel was founded on different grounds. (that’s merely particularism: the acknowledgement that peoples, races and ethnic groups are different – hence, the ‘ways of living’ shouldn’t be all equal around the Globe; here’s an example: nothing frightens the Anglo-Saxon like ‘totalitarianism’, however for the Congolese the better set-up for their nation could be a ‘benevolent’ Dictatorship.)

  8. BlackFlag says:
    @Mack2

    Sean Last did the most comprehensive study relating to Cofnas’ “default hypothesis”:
    https://archive.is/NVb4w

    The default *strategy* for any people should be one of extreme reluctance in allowing organs of culture and politics to be heavily influenced by people who view themselves as belonging to a separate ethnic group. You’d need to be in a highly unusual situation to deviate from this default strategy.

    Europeans have got themselves in quite a bind.

    Link to Cole’s response to Unz please?

    • Replies: @Mack2
  9. Mack2 says:
    @BlackFlag

    I somehow missed that article. Thanks for the link

    “Ron Unz Annoys David Cole (a tragedy in three acts)”
    https://archive.vn/ebHUa

  10. Thomasina says:
    @Mack2

    Was it just the one exchange between David Cole and Ron Unz that you linked to that “almost immediately” forced you to change your mind after years of being a “denier”? Just this one exchange?

    Cole’s unnecessary and ridiculous attack on what was a very courteous reply by Ron Unz was totally uncalled for. It smacked of desperation on Cole’s part and made me wonder what Cole was so worried about.

    So many lies have been uncovered. Revisionists have had to fight to get the truth out, and in so doing have been jailed, smeared, attacked, and their livelihoods destroyed. For what? Because they dared to question the unquestionable? Meanwhile, the Holocaust industry is thriving, and laws are being passed to halt further investigation.

    When events must be hidden behind a wall and all debate stifled, of course it’s going to raise suspicion. The Holocaust debate needs to be thrown wide open. Only then will the truth prevail. Would you agree?

    How about giving everyone immunity against prosecution and let them go to town.

    • Replies: @Mack2
  11. Anonymous[252] • Disclaimer says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    In the meantime, (((We ))) will crush you!!

  12. ellul says:

    Fantastic article. Confas is a farce. He will continue to prostrate himself at the doors of academia until he’s accepted. And we all know the best way to do that is to scream about how the tribe is mistreated.

  13. Another point about FIRE and similar “conservative free speech” organizations on campus is that they take particular interest in attacking pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist movements, often accusing them of anti-semitism, and spend relatively little time criticizing things like critical race theory or sticking up for White students. Their main mission is to make campus safe for Zionism, and any purely rhetorical criticisms they may make of “woke” anti-Whiteness on campus are pro-forma and never followed by action.

    • Replies: @Alden
  14. @Mack2

    This is Mike Enoch. Cofnas refused to debate me in podcast format, but I had several debates with him on twitter, all of which are unfortunately deleted now since I have been banned multiple times. I always managed to beat him in these twitter debates, which frankly isn’t that hard.

    Unfortunately you have to take my word for that since I cannot reproduce the text of these debates. So he was in fact willing to debate me and Striker, just not in a manner that would be recorded and could be used against him long into the future. His excuses for not debating me are weak and some of them lies.

    1. If I’m so dishonest and not serious, then why not show me to be so in a debate? If I were truly as below him as he thinks, he wouldn’t discuss me at all. But since he mentioned me, and even considered debating me, and then chickened out, it’s obvious he was just afraid of being embarrassed.

    2. I did read his paper. His assertion that I didn’t is just made up, based on the idea that since I agreed with MacDonald’s rebuttal I must have only read the rebuttal. In fact much of his paper really does consist, as Andrew says above, of a collection of trivial anecdotes about this or that Jew being present in right wing groups. He also consistently ignored some fundamental epistemological criticism of his “default hypothesis” which he claims should be accepted at the outset because it’s inherently more plausible. I don’t see why anyone should accept that framework. I also criticized him for misstating MacDonald’s thesis, something Kevin agrees with, and I have done an extensive interview with Kevin where we discuss how Cofnas fails to even accurately report to his readers what Kevin’s theory even is. He never responded to any of these points, preferring to call me dumb and lazy. Which is ironic. He seems selectively willing to dive into internet style arguments and then bow out calling them unserious when he sees fit.

    3. His point that I am so set in my ways that I could not emotionally accept his evidence can be just as easily turned around on him. He has as much invested in his side of the debate as I have in mine. So this is just something that is true of all people on either side of contentious topics and since debates are about convincing an audience which side is stronger, not convincing your opponent, this is just more bad faith reasoning.

    4. I don’t know who he is talking about here, but it isn’t me and he doesn’t tell us who it is or give examples. Let’s assume he means me for a sec. Perhaps he is referring to statements I have made saying that I don’t entirely agree with Kevin’s concept of pathological altruism among Whites. That has nothing to do with Kevin’s work on Jews, and also doesn’t mean I consider him a poor scholar. It’s something I respectfully have slight disagreement with him on. But he says there are alt-rightists that accept that he found serious problems with Kevin’s scholarship, yet he doesn’t tell us who or show where they said that and what they said. So no reason really to take this seriously.

    Here I will summarize two my arguments with Cofnas, and you can be the judge. In one debate he had made a tweet saying that alt-right people loved to talk about Paul Erlich as an example of a left-wing Jew that promoted radical environmentalism and population control, but that we never talk about his primary opponent being Julian Simon, the libertarian economist who is also a Jew.

    First of all, the implication that Kevin’s thesis says that Jews will find themselves primarily on the left and thus finding a Jew on the right refutes it is ridiculous, but secondly this particular anecdote make’s Kevin’s point and undermines Nathan’s, something he would have known if he had actually looked into Julian Simon beyond the facile categorization as “right wing economist.” On top of that I don’t even know any alt-rightists with a bee in their bonnet about Erlich, so one wonders if Nathan simply found a public debate with a Jew on either side and then put words in the mouths of imaginary and unnamed people.

    Jews are very well represented in free market ideological schools of economics and libertarianism, and for reasons that perfectly jive with Kevin’s theory. Secondly, Simon was an open borders fanatic similar to the Jewish economist Bryan Caplan, who would also be considered “right wing.” Erlich said Whites should have fewer babies, Simon said we should open the borders. In the end they both got what they wanted.

    So that entire debate not only fits into Kevin’s theory, but also fits into the White Nationalist narrative (which Kevin does not discuss) that part of the Jewish strategy is to dominate both sides of public debates and make sure arguments on either side are friendly to Jewish interests. Cofnas bailed out of this exchange completely and stopped responding to me when I pointed out Simon’s views and biography.

    In another debate he attacked me for stating that “White privilege theory” is a product of Jewish intellectuals, saying in fact this theory is the product of White Gentiles and mentioning Petty MacIntosh and the invisible knapsack paper from 1989 as evidence, claiming that this was the first use of the term “White privilege.” Again, this was easy to refute by showing that the Jew Noel Ignatiev had been using the term “White Skin Privilege” as far back as the early 60s and that he is well known as one of the intellectual godfathers of that ideology. Again, Cofnas simply stopped responding.

    It seems that one of Nathan’s problems in debating me is either that I actually just know more about Jews than he does, which I kind of doubt, or that he expects his shitty caricature of me to be real and that I will be thunderstruck rather than actually do some research. But the fundamental problem is the framework Cofnas himself sets up in which he relies on anecdotes and simple categorizations of “left” and “right” to own his opponents without considering that the real issue is the biography, stated goals and Jewish identification of Jewish intellectuals, not their place on the left-right spectrum.

  15. Mack2 says:
    @Thomasina

    Was it just the one exchange between David Cole and Ron Unz that you linked to that “almost immediately” forced you to change your mind after years of being a “denier”? Just this one exchange?

    See also:

    https://archive.vn/re5Qt

    and make up your own mind whether Cole’s arguments check out. For my part, after digesting them and revisiting the revisionist scene with a more objective eye I quickly came to the conclusion that Robert Faurrison and others weren’t so different from the likes of Deborah Lipstadt in that both sides were more concerned with promoting and protecting competing dogmas than with the disinterested pursuit of truth, hardly surprising in hindsight. Cole ironically comes out as the voice of reason in this debate, even though, ultimately, he too is just defending his people.

    So many lies have been uncovered. Revisionists have had to fight to get the truth out, and in so doing have been jailed, smeared, attacked, and their livelihoods destroyed. For what? Because they dared to question the unquestionable? Meanwhile, the Holocaust industry is thriving, and laws are being passed to halt further investigation.

    When events must be hidden behind a wall and all debate stifled, of course it’s going to raise suspicion. The Holocaust debate needs to be thrown wide open. Only then will the truth prevail. Would you agree?

    How about giving everyone immunity against prosecution and let them go to town.

    I basically agree, I just have serious doubts about the usefulness of a counter-religion to Holocaustianity to our cause. (Not assuming anything about you.)

    • Replies: @Anon
  16. Anonymous[660] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ll keep this brief: this article was too long so I didn’t read it. Even the author’s responses in the comments were too long. Great job selling your point of view!

  17. BLM is about Jews flattering blacks to keep them as moral allies(Magic Negroes) so that Jews can go on slaughtering Palestinians & Arabs with impunity.

    BLM is a ‘moral’ bullet aimed at BDS.

    A dirty Zionist trick.

  18. Cofnas responded to Joyce last month:

  19. Schuetze says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    Lol. Not Only Wrathful has found a bug in the UR commenting engine. Of course it takes a Jew with a typically overblown yid ego to find out by that you can “Thank” yourself.

  20. Schuetze says:

    Jews have been caught lying over and over about their new sacred idol, the holohoax. From Eli Wiesel to Katyn Forest to masturbation extermination machines Jews have damned themselves with these lies. We also know that the testimony of most of the Germans who were put on “trial” in the sham Nuremburg Tribunals had been extracted by torture. Then throw in all the deceit about the Haavara agreements and Zionist support for the NSDAP, and the continually declining number of “deaths” at Auschwitz (from 4m down to to 1m), that makes the holy 6 million “holocausted jews” a pathetic joke, and it becomes clear that we have been presented with one gigantic furball of typical jewish lies, contradictions and misdirections. We also know that this is deliberate.

    Therefore any sane person realizes that these holocaust claims do not pass the stink test. But it gets worse. Jewish Power has made it a crime across the entire planet to deny this cruel hoax. This is a crime against humanity that is ongoing and is resulting in the destruction of lives and even out right murder. And it is ongoing.

    So how can Jews possibly set this right and make good the damage they have inflicted on the Goyim? Lets face it, it is impossible. It is the same as the 1-2 punch Jews delivered to Germany with Versailles and Weimar. Redemption is no longer possible for this tribe of psychopathic racial supremacist pedophiles.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Thanks: Peripatetic Itch
  21. Bert says:
    @Anon

    The KMac “group evolutionary strategy” is a little tired, though. Nation-states are group strategies, and sometimes empires.

    In my opinion MacDonald primarily amassed evidence that Jews are a cohesive parasitic entity, initially within nation states but now parasitizing globally except where not allowed access, i.e., Roma on steroids. The best context for the functioning of a group strategy was when the lives of all Jews were strongly controlled by rabbis, who enforced conformity to the strategy. But who benefited from the strategy? The rabbis or the whole Jewish population? I don’t believe MacDonald has addressed the detailed mechanics of how a Jewish group evolutionary strategy actually works, certainly not via a mathematical model.

    Current anti-white Jewish behavior can be culturally-transmitted as a residue from the old rabbinical social control type, and/or genetically-transmitted via psychological modules that arose evolutionarily by natural selection on individual reproductive success. I believe that the latter is important, much more so than is generally admitted. Covert antipathy to white counterparties was likely to have led to greater reproductive success. Nowadays the antipathy is no longer covert nor practiced only against individuals, but it still can be driven by the same genetically-based psychological modules as in western Russia of six hundred years ago.

    • Replies: @Lynda Brayer
  22. Schuetze says:

    One of the most toxic aspects of the curse of Jewish existence is their rank hypocrisy. I thought I would start a list…

    – Jews demand every country on the planet have open borders yet have constructed walls around their own country.
    – Jews demand every country be purged of all traces of “racism” yet their racism towards Ethiopian Jews knows no bounds
    – Jews demand that every other country on the planet submit to nuclear inspections or be destroyed, yet Israel has a massive arsenal and nuclear program that goes uninspected
    – Jews demand every other country sign and honor the nuclear non-proliferation agreement yet violate it with impunity
    – Jews demand every religion on the planet accept their “Noahide laws” yet they will not accept any other religion’s laws
    – Atheist Jews claim that their god gave them the right to steal land and Palestine from the Palestinians
    – Atheist Jews believe that they are superior and “gods chosen people”
    – Jews have been expelled from 109 countries yet refuse to recognize that this is statistical proof that anti-semitism isn’t the issue, that is their own racial characteristics that are the problem
    – Their Torah and their Talmud allow them to lie to other races and religions but not to themselves
    – They call all other peoples “goyim” which means cattle, yet claim to be concerned about “humanity”
    – Jews snipe and murder Palestinian children for merely approaching their wall, yet demand retribution for anyone that lays a finger on a jew
    – Jews love to spit on all things Christian, especially churches, yet kvetch and fling spittle if anyone shows disrespect to their synogogues
    – Many hundreds, even thousands, of fake intellectuals like Cofnas kvetch and shriek lies like Rabbis at the wailing wall whenever any goy author dares to write the unadulterated truth about jews

    I think that list is a start. Perhaps if I think of some more examples of crass Jewish hypocrisy I will reply to this post and add them.

    • Thanks: anarchyst
    • Replies: @anarchyst
  23. Bert says:

    Cofnas is so eager for publications that he entered a lion’s den to get one, and got severely bitten on the butt after his paper came out. Irrespective of his handling of MacDonald’s work, Cofnas did a yeoman’s job with the publication linked below.

    Cofnas paper:
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803

    Mauling of Cofnas’s paper: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2020.1805199

    Editorial groveling: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2020.1805198

  24. I read this report on the site of the Occidental Observer and was very much impressed by the amount of work it must have taken to put together. For every hundred guys who just shoot off their mouths, there are only one or two writers who really take the time to investigate. My appreciation to Mr. Joyce.

    • Agree: Thomasina
  25. @Andrew Joyce

    For the sake of comparison, the White share of the youth population in America has declined 70% since 1990. Although not quite at replacement level, the fertility level of Jewish women in America (1.9), remains higher than that of White women (1.6). Pew note that even in Europe, “Jews have a slightly higher fertility rate than Europeans overall.” The correct way of looking at the bigger picture of Jewish intermarriage may be that while ethnic drift and miscegenation are becoming increasingly common for all ethnic groups under the weight of globalism, Jews have been remarkably insulated from its most damaging effects through cultural cohesion, the nature of Jewish identity, and their possession of an ethnically defined nation-state.

    This is dishonest, and you know it.

    The higher fertility rate among “American Jews” is being driven by the large population of Orthodox “sideburn” Jews. These people are low IQ, uninfluential welfare recipients and not the secular, high IQ Jews of influence you are always complaining about. These two groups have nothing to do with eachother.

    The fertility rate of high IQ, secular Jews in the USA is well below that of gentile white women, and has been since the 1930s.

    Also, you said Jewish men marrying non-Jewish women “dominates” intermarriage in the USA. That’s absurdly false; gentile white men marrying nonwhite women is the predominant trend.

    Cofnas got it right, you anti-Semites are just pathological liars and smear machines. You dish out a lot of writing, but when ordinary, sane individuals write back you go in to meltdown mode and start throwing around new lies as you cry foul.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Anon
  26. @Schuetze

    “…Of course it takes a Jew with a typically overblown yid ego to find out by that you can “Thank” yourself…”

    That is Jewish “nepotism” to its absurd conclusion.

    • LOL: Schuetze
  27. @JohnPlywood

    “…Cofnas got it right, you anti-Semites are just pathological liars and smear machines…”

    What is truth to Gentiles is lies to Jews, but as a Jew trained in age old Talmudic pilpul you will already know that.

    • LOL: JohnPlywood
  28. @Bert

    I tend to think that Jewish antagonism is not so much anti-White as it is anti-competition. The Whites are competition for the Jews and they know it. Their pro-Black attitudes can be explained by the fact that they do not consider Blacks at their level in any way, shape or form and most certainly do not consider them a competitive group. The fact of the matter is that for Jews, consciously or sub-consciously, all gentiles are enemies, to use the political breakdown of Carl Schmitt. In that sense, Jews form a political class – not a party political class – but a political class in the sense of their being a power group. It is not necessarily conscious but it plays out predictably to a T. So they play the Blacks against the Whites and stay unnamed and in that way, hidden.

  29. @Mike Peinovich

    Anyone who thinks Jewish elite opinion differs substantially from the bulk and majority of elite opinion is merely outing themselves as a fantasist.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
    , @James Forrestal
  30. @Schuetze

    …or it is funny…

    • Replies: @DrWatson
  31. anarchyst says:
    @Schuetze

    After the bolshevik communist takeover of Russia in 1917, Christian church property was repurposed by the bolshevik communist government, being converted into barns, stables, and for other secular uses.
    NOT ONE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE was “repurposed”.
    In fact, most of the bolshevik communist “revolutionaries” were themselves jews.
    Sorta tells you something.

    • Replies: @anon
  32. Schuetze says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    We get it already, anyone of “bulk and majority of elite opinion” who has an opinion the differs from “Jewish elite opinion“is an anti-semite, Amelek and ABC (Already Been Cancelled). We understand how it works with politicians, Cynthia McKinney explained it to us: Either they sign a pledge to support Israel, or they are Amalek. We have seen what Jews do to people who step out of Noahide line, like Pat Buchannon, Mel Gibson, Alison Chabloz, Ursula Haverbeck, or even David Irving.

    Jews are disgusting sadistic bullies just look at the communists and the Kazharian Mafia with all their murders and assassinations. That is why the NSDAP had to have its brown shirts.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  33. anon[325] • Disclaimer says:
    @anarchyst

    In fact, most of the bolshevik communist “revolutionaries” were themselves jews. Sorta tells you something.

    just like in the attempted German communist revolution of 1919, where at least 11 of the top 15 communist leaders were jews despite jews only being about 2-3% of the population

    its the same group stirring up shit in everyone else’s country and then who dies? the goyim do, by the hundreds of millions

  34. Anonymous[301] • Disclaimer says:

    Cofnas’ lame attempts to poke holes in MacDonald’s work have been thoroughly, and deservedly, flushed but very few people bothered to examine his own explanation for Jewish over-representation in key money/power positions which is even more ridiculous.

    According to him, the Jews are much smarter than the whites (A) and the positions they’re occupying require that trait (B) which results in an organic over-representation (C). So it’s simple A+B=C.

    Meanwhile, in the real world:

    A – Median IQ in Israel is 94-95. That’s 5-6 points below the UK.

    B – The positions they’re hoarding – whether it’s in Hollywood, media, banking, politics or porn – are clearly not showing any signs of exceptional brightness. As a matter of fact, most of those sectors have lost credibility and are circling down the toilet in direct proportion to the number of chosenites in charge.

    C – This is where it gets even more interesting. Even if we assume – for the sake of argument – that Cofnas is right about A and B, the resulting C doesn’t fit – at all. A 110 median IQ tribe would have twice as many 130+ IQ people than a 100 IQ competitor but if they’re only 2% of the population that would barely push their over-representation in “smart” roles to the 4-5% mark (4-5% of the total 100%).

    What we’re seeing instead is massive, 30-100% over-representation by undeserving Jewish sub-mediocrities squatting wherever they can best exploit, undermine and/or kill their hosts. The math simply doesn’t add up even if we input Cofnas’ own funky data into the equation. Lol!

  35. @Schuetze

    The writers of these articles know, on one level, how crazy someone like you is, but they encourage it. They enjoy the power of being able to dement just too much. You’re a fly in their sadistic web. Sorry

  36. Jews have been persecuted for two thousand years. They have proved time and time again that they are an ethnocentric parasitical race that once allowed into a country, will enslave its indigenous population with their usury. This parasitical race will immediately seek to buy up all media, infiltrate politics and educational institutions. They also seek to set up centralized banking. They gain an unfair advantage by ruthlessly promoting their own at the exclusion of all other races. Their cohesion and tribal allegiance are secretive. Once their stranglehold becomes apparent to the masses of enslaved, the masses awaken and anti-semitic pogroms occur. This same cycle repeats over and over again. The German people of WWII were the last to wrestle with “The Jewish Question”. What this parasitical race fears most (as studied feverishly in the Frankfurt School) is a homogeneous Arian CHRISTIAN nation with strong Nationalistic unity and pride. To break a nation, you simply open its borders and flood it with other races. JEWS invented Multi-culturalism and use it throughout the world, targeting homogeneous countries. To break a nation you attack the nuclear family with No-Fault Divorce Laws, Family Law, Feminsim, and now Transgenderism. To break a nation, you attack their Christain Religion and values – you pollute their Christianity by funding the Scoffield Bible Addendum. To break a nation you pollute their universities with Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory…etc.

    The US was a VIRGIN country full of Pius Christians, wholely unaware of the Jewish threat and unwilling to confront it. We had no experience with this parasitical race. All of Europe knew these people through hundreds of years of interaction. We did not. As a country, we were so very nieve. We were easy pickings. Once the Jews gained control of our media and Hollywood they could shape our reality and maintain our naivety to the destruction of our beloved country.

    They have been orchestrating this horseshit for decades. They hold no allegiance to any country except Israel. So what do they care if Ireland, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, America all lose their National identity. It means for them, they lessen the chance of extermination by their host country.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Schuetze
  37. It’s all just so…..deep. Fuggit, I’m gonna go play golf. Yall solve it yourselves.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  38. What is the argument? Are Jews over represented in life’s most important areas? Of course they are. So if the question is why, and it should be. The answer is Biblical. Surprised?
    While us non-Jews, us goyim, have been steered away from ‘the’ faith, into a more secular world, the Jew remains loyal to the Old Testament, and as such, the Jew remains at war with Christianity first, and the Muslim second.
    For an explanation of what I claim, I suggest reading Laurent Guyenot’s book: “From Yahweh to Zion: A Clash of Civilizations”.

  39. Good Mr. Joyce;

    I didn’t read your entire article, but about 1/3 of it, as well as the summary you gave in the first comment. I think the case is quite clear that Cofnas does not embody intellectual integrity, and that his arguments are spurious and unreasonable.

    However, there is one thing that you are both somehow missing, I feel.

    In his case, he does not seem to understand that there are in fact very evil people wearing the mantle of Judaism, and he contorts and weaves himself into endless rationalizations to avoid facing up to this fact. That he mentions Marx as having expressed anti-jewish views does not seem to mean that he has internalized the fact of there being evil and organized jews. He strikes me as an indoctrinated, foolish, and undisciplined character, but not as a malevolent.

    He certainly, even less than he has understood McDonalds work, does not seem to have either read and understood the line of the Protocols that says: “we shall control our lesser brethren through anti-semitism”.

    In your case, while I normally read your writings with pleasure, as I find them sensible, interesting, well-reasoned, and intellectually subtle, I also think that you are in a way missing a central point: we are dealing with evil – metaphysical evil, even – and while intellectual inquiry is very useful to apply to it, it does not really get to the central core of the matter.

    Which is: Metaphysical Evil must be countered by metaphysical Good – there is no other way.

    I am glad that you make a point of mentioning in this article that your analysis does not necessarily pertain to each and every jew. I think this is important, not only because it is true, but also because it makes your analysis more persuasive.

    Kind regards, and best wishes in your further endeavours.

    • Troll: Schuetze
  40. @Not Only Wrathful

    Rule nr. one: If a debate with a Gentile fails, call him an “anti-Semite”.

    Rule nr. two: If rule nr. one fails, call him “crazy”.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  41. Schuetze says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    You call that a rebuttal? It’s not even a decent ad-hominem. Jews really have no clue about reality, they cannot debate worth a shit, and they contribute nothing to society. Their entire existence is dependent on nepotism and deceit.

    Lets just take another look at your comment:

    “Anyone who thinks Jewish elite opinion differs substantially from the bulk and majority of elite opinion is merely outing themselves as a fantasist.”

    Jews have been expelled from 109 countries, stolen Palestine, started 2 world wars and 2 communist revolutions, spread the gain of function Covid around the planet, and you expect us to believe that the worlds goy elites agree with these genocidal Jews? Get a grip. You have been living in a sadistic bubble created by your Rabbi and your genocidal heroes Henry Morgentau, Theodore N. Kaufman, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. To Jews, who consider themselves to be gods chosen people, all of humanity is like a tree full of apes that they deceived and murdered to get to the top of. When the Jews look down from their perch at the top of the tree, they see only smiling goy apes looking up and pat themselves on their backs. When the goy apes look up, they see nothing but a bunch of stinking assholes.

  42. @Schuetze

    Or it is one shift worker taking over from another the handle at the workstation and thanking him for his comment. They’re busy in that room of bots sat at workstations in their rows and columns.

    • Agree: Schuetze
  43. Schuetze says:
    @Mike Fridelle

    I moved to Europe from the US with my young family at the age of 30. After a couple of years living in Europe I remember commenting to my father about how there seemed to be a deep strain of anti-semitism running through the Europeans that as an American I could not understand. With time, more maturity, and a better understanding of history, I finally realized why.

    My US father and my US siblings have no clue about what Jews have done to humanity. Hitler once said that the US is the jew’s playground. He was correct.

    • Replies: @DrWatson
  44. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Simple observation:

    If everyone is calling you a crazy anti-Semite…maybe that is because you are?

  45. @Schuetze

    You have one factual observation in your post. You point out that Jews have been kicked out of many countries. Which is true, but also just a component of the more substantial and relevant factual observation, that Jews are the most welcomed in and well-hosted minority in human history, valued far above others, for centuries and even millennia, and to this day

    On a different note, if Nazis are the most hated people in the world, in every country, and among every group, then maybe that’s for a reason…

    • Replies: @anon
  46. @Not Only Wrathful

    Rule nr. three: if rule nr. one and rule nr. two fail, call him a “crazy anti-Semite”.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  47. Schuetze says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    Simple observation:

    If everyone is throwing jews out of their countries for centuries because of blood sacrifice…maybe that is because the allegations are true?

  48. @Schuetze

    You talk of debate, Schuetze? You are unreasonable and foolish, as I have already made clear more than once. You are intelligent and brave, it seems, and really, I am sure that you are better than these ridiculous comments.

    Your incessant harping on “the jews, the jews, all jews, every jew!” is pathetic, foolish, and scandalous, and you are doing just what the evil and organized jews wish you to do. Just so, you are a gullible tool in their hands, prancing around like some big-shot, yet your understanding is fraught with idiocy.

    3 times I mentioned it to you, the Protocols, and this is the 4th: “we shall control our lesser brethren through anti-semitism”. You should get that through your thick head before you talk of debate.

    Hitler was a good man who turned into a bag of rotten shit – following his example will lead to doom.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  49. @Franklin Ryckaert

    You’re right. That’s so surface level. In reality you are just a very anti-social personality with the conscious width and depth of a pin.

    And you wonder why everyone experiences you as a prick?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  50. Richard B says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    Mark Twain’s great quote about never arguing with stupid people, because they’ll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, comes irresistably to mind.

    When it comes to stupid, Not Only Wrathful‘s experience is extensive.

    • Agree: Schuetze
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Johnny Rico
  51. @Schuetze

    Or maybe, just maybe, some jews did it in secret, and then dumped the bodies for all to see, and then pinned the blame on decent jews whom they hated and held in contempt with a rare passion and intensity – in order to “control their lesser brethren through anti-semitism”?

    That’s how it works, Schuetze. Deception. And you fall for it, like a chump.

    You should read up on Jacob Frank before you speak another word on jews.

    Or start with this article right here:
    https://www.henrymakow.com/were_illuminati_jews_responsib.html

  52. @Not Only Wrathful

    Rule nr. four: If rule nr. one, two and three fail, call him a “prick”.

    For your education, if you want to know why Jews are hated everywhere, read some good books about the Jewish Question. Following is a list I usually recommend:

    1) David Duke: Jewish Supremacism.

    2) Kevin MacDonald: The Culture of Critique.

    3) Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion.

    4) When Victims Rule, exists only in PDF on line by an anonymous (Jewish!) author.

    Either the Jews are wrong, or the whole world is wrong. Which is more likely?

  53. Thomasina says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    “It reminds me of a girl chasing a guy who doesn’t get her. You can point out why it won’t work in a million different ways, but every time she’ll just pause and then come up with a self-deception that allows her to cling onto her fantasy. I suppose you need to run your full path, but goodness, is your path an ugly one. You have my full compassion for what you feel you need to undergo.”

    In the beginning of any one-sided relationship, it is seldom the trusting/naive party who does the chasing. If any chasing is done, it’s done by the manipulative/deceitful party who pretends to care only to gain your trust. As time goes on, the self-centered narcissistic party eventually takes over your finances, controls the narrative, and ridicules/bribes/blackmails you into submission.

    In other words, the narcissist DOES get the girl. He knows her better than she knows herself. He knows what makes her tick, how much he can push her, how she will react, what she fears. Classic narcissism. If she isn’t aware of what’s going on, she could literally lose her shirt.

    Andrew Joyce and Kevin MacDonald are not chasing anyone. They DO get what’s going on. They’re exposing the narcissist (which he doesn’t much like) and they’re trying to warn the girl. She appears to be listening.

    And that’s a good thing, otherwise she could not only lose her shirt, but her country too.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  54. @Schuetze

    Has there ever been a group that was more often welcomed, wanted and kept than Jews? One that was more popular? Or admired?

    I can’t think of any, but you focus on a a few rumours here and there to avoid the fact above…

  55. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Your last sentence is a false dichotomy.

    Some jews are wrong, and some non-jews are wrong.

    David Duke, while he may be sincere and well-meaning, and is in any case intelligent and brave, is a fool. He does not see to the core of things.

  56. @Franklin Ryckaert

    But Jews are not hated everywhere. This would be delusion.

  57. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Richard B

    As the late Roger Scruton put it about Jacques Derrida, when you trash one of these yids like Nathan Cofnas or Not Only Wrathful in a face-to-face argument, he’ll disappear up his own asshole like the Cheshire cat.

  58. @Richard B

    You could not even provide the quote. It is not clear who your comment is directed at and Schuetze, or should we call him Sergeant Shultz, doesn’t understand irony.

  59. Schuetze says:

    Has there ever been a group that was more often hated and despised than one group of Jews by the other? One that was more popular? Or admired by themselves?

    https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html

    [MORE]

    This remarkable Zionist proposal “for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation of the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany” is worth quoting at some length: /46

    In their speeches and statements, the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany have often emphasized that a New Order in Europe requires as a prerequisite a radical solution of the Jewish question by evacuation. (“Jew-free Europe”)

    The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question. However, the only way this can be totally achieved is through settlement of these masses in the homeland of the Jewish people, Palestine, and by the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries.

    The goal of the political activity and the years of struggle by the Israel Freedom Movement, the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi), is to solve the Jewish problem in this way and thus completely liberate the Jewish people forever.

    The NMO, which is very familiar with the good will of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program, takes that view that:

    1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.

    2. Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry [Hebräertum].

    3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

    On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

    This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the Jewish men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front by formed.

    The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

    The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England.

    Jews aren’t just as bad as Nazi’s, they are even worse, for Jews hate other Jews more than any Nazi ever could. Jews are their own Amaleks.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  60. Thomasina says:
    @Anon

    “The KMac “group evolutionary strategy” is a little tired, though. Nation-states are group strategies, and sometimes empires. Those creatures who are not engaging in group strategies are always engaging in individual strategies. These things are trivial, and mean little. The idea that J people push the “left” for their own good is not so interesting; once again, all minorities do.”

    Yeah, no biggie.

    Game Theory: “If everybody cooperates, incentives accrue to the person who cheats.”

    In a high-trust society, just imagine what could be done with a little (or a lot of) strategy. Why, you could control the narrative, lie with abandon, manipulate the economy, write the laws, bribe, blackmail, threaten, steal, kill.

    But these things are “trivial and mean little”. LOL.

    • Thanks: Schuetze
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  61. @Thomasina

    In the beginning of any one-sided relationship, it is seldom the trusting/naive party who does the chasing. If any chasing is done, it’s done by the manipulative/deceitful party who pretends to care only to gain your trust. As time goes on, the self-centered narcissistic party eventually takes over your finances, controls the narrative, and ridicules/bribes/blackmails you into submission.

    If you see yourself solely as the trusting/naive one and the other as the manipulative/deceitful one, then the obvious answer is that you don’t see yourself at all

    In other words, the narcissist DOES get the girl. He knows her better than she knows herself. He knows what makes her tick, how much he can push her, how she will react, what she fears. Classic narcissism. If she isn’t aware of what’s going on, she could literally lose her shirt

    My observation is that the vast majority of people who cling to this narrative experience love as an egotistical melange of pride, anger, control, power and domination

    After all, what is it to receive everything you want from someone, without trying to know them, than a prideful power trip?

    Or to put very simply: why would you want your romantic partner to treat you like a Queen on a throne?

    Relationships are generally equal in dynamic. It is when they end that you really see each individual’s mettle. The individual who grows will want nothing but the best for their ex, while the individual who can’t grow (narcissism) will only want their suffering.

    Real love wants the best for the other even in your absence. Egostical “love” wants the other to suffer if they don’t allow themselves to be dominated by you.

    And worse, when such people get rejected, after giving nothing but demanding everything, they power trip even more into rage and pride and grandiose narratives of how pure and innocent and yet also terrifying they were…

    Your post reminds me of this anti-social old woman I know who married a much older man. She did so for status and to soothe her deeply wounded ego. She also liked him being older because she felt safe that she could dominate him. But he wasn’t a complete imbecile and she was eventually sent packing to LARP around society as someone with grace. Her wounded ego precludes her from an honest self-appreciation and so she has to project her behaviour onto everyone around. She too projects onto Jews, as she did her ex, and other men. This way she maintains a thin narrative to herself as a naive truth seeker with indefatigable honesty. In reality she is just a textbook narcissist trying to overcome whatever hurt her in the first place – probably some sort of mundane poor background and childhood bullying that she never pushed past. She is stuck in her own hell, that will continue life after life, until she somehow finds the courage to change.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    , @Thomasina
  62. @Not Only Wrathful

    “…Has there ever been a group that was more often welcomed, wanted and kept than Jews..?”

    You must be delusional. Ever heard about the ship St. Louis with its Jewish refugees? How welcome was that?

    And how welcome were (and are) the Jews in Palestine? Does the name Hajj Amin Husseini ring a bell?

    Question: which of these two guys in this picture was more welcoming to the Jews?

  63. @Franklin Ryckaert

    1) David Duke: Jewish Supremacism.

    2) Kevin MacDonald: The Culture of Critique.

    3) Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion

    And to you, these are three astoundingly popular and much loved figures?

    Aren’t they actually the most reviled and disreputable individuals, across the entire political spectrum, in modern life?

    99% of white people wouldn’t want to know them. They’d probably be better treated in Israel than they would in most European countries.

    And they style themselves as campaigners for European man?!?!

    Lol

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  64. anarchyst says:
    @Schuetze

    Jewish “blood sacrifice” is real. Today, it is called adenochrome harvesting. In order to maximize the amount of adrenaline in adenochrome blood, the (gentile) child must be tortured in order to extract the maximum amount of adrenaline in the adenochrome. Almost all “mover and shakers”, deep state types, hollywood celebrities subscribe to these adenochrome harvesting services.
    All one has to do is to look at the soulless, dullness in their eyes…
    It would appear that the influx of “undocumented children” into the USA would be a “gold mine” for the adenochrome addicts.

    • Agree: Schuetze
  65. “The migration policy advisor for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (Sara Feldman) is not a Catholic, but a Jewish woman.”

    The Roman Catholic Church is the trojan horse in which the Greeks (Jews) ride to the destruct the Protestant and Orthodox Christian communities… late Pope John Paul II didn’t call Jews “our elder brothers” not for nothing.

  66. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Question: which one of these two guys was your mom more welcoming to?

    And while we are at it, which author is less read and more talked about by his fans – Kevin MacDonald or Hitler?

    I own a copy of Mein Kampf and I have taken Culture of Critique out of the library.I was able to make it through 100 pages of Culture. I’ve never opened Mein Kampf. Most historians agree it is unreadable.

  67. @Not Only Wrathful

    “…Aren’t they actually the most reviled and disreputable individuals, across the entire political spectrum, in modern life..?”

    They are artificially reviled “across the entire political spectrum” due to the almost total Jewish control of the media. In the alternative media they are highly respected and popular. David Duke’s book has been translated into many languages and has become a bestseller in Russia. It earned him a doctorate at an Ukrainian University (hence “Dr.” Duke). Kevin MacDonald is the go-to intellectual of the White Nationalist movement.

    Jewish “mainstream” media are losing control. People are beginning to understand that they all are lying. The Internet is the Achilles heel of Jewish power.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  68. @Schuetze

    Has there ever been a group that was more often hated and despised than one group of Jews by the other?

    Probably not

    All hatred is self-hatred, and so the closer the object of projection is to the actual self, the more pure and unfiltered the hatred is

    Of course the same could be said for all conflicts within groups…

  69. Alden says:
    @Mike Peinovich

    I’ve noticed that FIRE and other alleged conservative free speech organizations are only interested in anti Palestinian and anti the Boycott Israel movement. I worked at UCLA when Ben Shapiro was a student. He pretended to be a conservative but he was just a Zionist activist. It was fun seeing the UCLA jews being attacked for being White Americans. Now it’s basically an over seas Chinese school, like those American English language medical schools in the Caribbean.

    Amren is great for reporting black crime. Like the NRA and the second amendment, it sticks to one issue and does it very well.

    Conservatism is just a rag bag of many issues.

  70. @Franklin Ryckaert

    “Most welcomed” doesn’t mean always welcomed.

    You’re splitting…to a degree that is so absurd you have to reach for Hitler…amazing

  71. @Not Only Wrathful

    Yeah, Unz must clearly have been projecting about Jews and break-ups when he wrote all his essays. So did Linh Dinh. So did basically most of the world when they kicked them out. Pure projections. Solzhenitsyn? Obsessed-Ex psyche.

    I do agree that in general, people should never be consumed with hatred or angry obsession. It doesn’t mean one can’t do scholarly research or expose evil or call out against it. You seem to be against the latter, associating it with an all-consuming hate, as if a person who studies the flawed economics of our country, and wrote a book about it, has some kind of personality-disorder in dire need of reincarnation.

    I’m not even that much of a person to blame Jews for everything (like any vampiric, mercantile group, they only have as much power as your wider society lets them have. China and Japan are pretty inoculated against them, and Russia learned its lessons.) I mean, every society has traitors, collaborators and abusers, and it’s not like Jewish groups would get far without them.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  72. @Franklin Ryckaert

    They are artificially reviled “across the entire political spectrum” due to the almost total Jewish control of the media.

    Everyone hates you and it is the Jews’ fault?

    David Duke’s book has been translated into many languages and has become a bestseller in Russia. It earned him a doctorate at an Ukrainian University (hence “Dr.” Duke). Kevin MacDonald is the go-to intellectual of the White Nationalist movement.

    If Putin knew who they were, he’d consider them deranged losers…

    And the “white nationalist movement” is a farce. 99% of white people want nothing to do with it. In fact it is an albatross around the necks of white people, that stops them from being able to be ordinarily assertive about the oppression which is genuinely meted out in their direction.

    The ideas are stupid, but many political ideas are stupid. The bigger problem is that the people are all such obviously anti-social individuals. There are exceptions (BAP et al), but so many are so mired in their fear, egotism and falseness that almost no one can even imagine connecting with them!

    At least Farrakhan seems like he has (even if briefly) seen his own heart. Macdonald seems like someone lost in a vanity nightmare

  73. @Boomthorkell

    Yeah, Unz must clearly have been projecting about Jews and break-ups when he wrote all his essays.

    Is there a man in the world more alienated from his own feeling than Ron Unz?

    So did Linh Dinh

    It feels to me that he is just a Loki-alike having fun

    I’m not even that much of a person to blame Jews for everything (like any vampiric, mercantile group, they only have as much power as your wider society lets them have. China and Japan are pretty inoculated against them, and Russia learned its lessons.)

    When you’re “cooly” and “rationally” comparing a group of people to mythological monsters and disease, perhaps your “scholarly research” isn’t actually the reason-based work you think it is…

    I like looking at extreme people, that is why I am here.

    The core part of me is contentment in self-sacrifice for knowledge (to aid those I love (maybe everyone I can)). This will lead me to make painful decisions. I can do this because of an extreme internal resilience and I am grateful for the times I did this even when I didn’t realise why I was doing it. Even at a very young age. Even when it led to extreme personal suffering.

    Do you think that anyone on the JQ right has insight enough to feel grateful for the suffering they have meted on themselves? I just see a bunch of whiny, self-designated victims, desperate to pretend that their manifold problems originate elsewhere.

    And of course, there is plenty of space for valuable and balanced criticism of Judaism and Jews…but Jews seem to do a whole lot of that…it is bizarre that anyone can persuade themselves that such is banned or even politically incorrect. I’ve never met a Jew who won’t offer their own critique when asked!

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
  74. @Mack2

    Count me as one of those “open-minded anti-Semites”

    A very large number of “Anti-Semites” are basically Counter-Semites.

    The dislike of them personally is secondary to the hatred of the damage they do.

  75. DrWatson says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    …or desperately needing approval/praise.

    If you think it is funny you have no sense of humor at all.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  76. @DrWatson

    Sorry that you think I shouldn’t have laughed, but I did, so that was nice for me…

  77. DrWatson says:

    It appears Cofna is getting his own medicine – sort of – in woke South Korea.

    My talk at one of the top universities in Korea got canceled because "senior faculty members" object to my presence on campus.Asia might not be a refuge for heterodox scholars. Many academics here got their PhDs in America and went woke.— Nathan Cofnas (@nathancofnas) March 27, 2021

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  78. @DrWatson

    Cofnas doesn’t seem to be about cancelling anyone. He seems to be about agreeing and disagreeing only. Goodness, anti-Semitism makes you stupid

    • Replies: @DrWatson
    , @Mefobills
  79. DrWatson says:

    I have no energy to read his article now but may be worth reading it later: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-021-00322-w

  80. Thomasina says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    “After all, what is it to receive everything you want from someone, without trying to know them, than a prideful power trip?”

    Yes, that would be narcissistic, wouldn’t it? And what if your intention was exactly that, never really wanting to get to know someone at all, remaining quite separate and detached, but pretending to be part of the whole? What if you were just in it to further your own interests (or that of your group)? You know, over time arranging things so that they were greatly beneficial to you, suited all of your needs and wants while the trusting party got screwed?

    “If you see yourself solely as the trusting/naive one and the other as the manipulative/deceitful one, then the obvious answer is that you don’t see yourself at all.”

    Exactly, you don’t see yourself at all, but unfortunately the manipulative/deceitful person does. Incapable of feeling much themselves, the narcissist pays particular attention to what makes you tick. If/when the injured party does begin to see herself, starts to gain a voice, this becomes the narcissist’s worst nightmare. God, she’s capable of pulling off his mask, the mask he wants the world to see. Why, he might even have to change partners/countries – again! So prickly, so messy.

    He’s going to definitely up his game at this point. He’s going to surround himself with his little pawns (they’re useful when needed, then easily discarded). The lies and threats will be thick. He will probably try to paint himself as the victim. Maybe even surround himself with armed security, barbed wire fencing. Ugly.

    Do I think the Jews are solely responsible for the downfall of the U.S? No, but they have played a large part in its undoing. This will come back on them, though. It always does. Nature…..or something.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  81. @Thomasina

    Good points.

    Part of lying and controlling the narrative gives the Pollards the ability to use propaganda to convince Europeans that they are evil and morally bankrupt.

    This is the key to how the nose wrecked the western world.

  82. Schuetze says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    “Has there ever been a group that was more often welcomed, wanted and kept than Jews? One that was more popular? Or admired?”

    One of the most hateful things you can do to your own people, or even worse to your own family and children, is to deliberately tell them lies. Jews do this continually, and it is one of the reasons why they are such psychopaths and wanted nowhere on the planet, not even among themselves. Not only did the Sabra jews living in Palestine after the Balfour agreement not want the Jekke and Ostjuden invading from Germany and Eastern Europe, they despised these invaders as much as the Moslems and Christians.

    The sad truth is that in 1938 when Germany and all of Eastern Europe were busy executing Haavara agreements and paying extortion money to the British to accept their despised and unwanted Jews into Palestine, Roosevelt convened the Évian Conferences to gather the entire planet to work together to accept Jewish migrants. The only country that willingly accepted them was the Dominican Republic. Otherwise no other country on the planet would accept the filthy jews.

    “The Évian Conference was convened 6–15 July 1938 at Évian-les-Bains, France, to address the problem of German and Austrian Jewish refugees wishing to flee persecution by Nazi Germany. It was the initiative of United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt who perhaps hoped to obtain commitments from some of the invited nations to accept more refugees, although he took pains to avoid stating that objective expressly. Historians have suggested that Roosevelt desired to deflect attention and criticism from American policy that severely limited the quota of Jewish refugees admitted to the United States.[1]

    The conference was attended by representatives from 32 countries, and 24 voluntary organizations also attended as observers, presenting plans either orally or in writing.

    delegations from the 32 participating nations failed to come to any agreement about accepting the Jewish refugees fleeing the Third Reich.

    Yet you lie to all the UR readers, and yourself, and all jews, “that there ever been a group that was more often welcomed“, and in doing so you make yourself the poster-boy of the self hating jew.

  83. Well, didn’t read whole thing thoroughly. Looks to be the normal rambling from the right wing. The guys should probably do a video debate and post it here or somewhere, would probably be more productive.

    Israel is very chummy with most of the far right movements in Europe, just because they hate da Mooslums just like their “Jewish” brethren. The poor dolts can’t seem to figure out that its their own fault all those Mooslums are fleeing their homelands. Like the low IQ right wingers here they just like bitching about the symptoms and not the disease. They should be blaming the Nazi Arming & Training Organization, NATO for their problems, which was ironically founded and stocked with fascists. Research Operation Gladio.

    Its pretty much the same for our situation here in Murica. CIA founded and stocked with fascists, Zionists and Nazis raising hell in Latin America for generations. Stealing resources, stealing labor, propping up narco-dictators and drug cartels to enrich the capitalist class at our expense. Overthrowing commies and socialists that were anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, anti-IMF and World Bank. Socialists and commies that actually took care of their people as best they could, and prevented the conditions that cause them to leave. US sanctions, blockades, coups, assassinations, and trade deals took care of that, this is why you get refugees. Go research Klaus Barbie, the cocaine coup, and Operation Condor, lots of interesting stuff there!

    As far as da commie Jews, they seem as easy to find as a unicorn. “Israel” has a communist party, it receives basically zero support from European “Israeli Jews”. The little support it get comes from Arabs, even though it members include Arabs and “Jews”. Ironically, they are anti-Zionist, antiwar, pro worker rights, support Assad in Syria, support full Palestinian rights and autonomy…

    Same here in Murica. All the geniuses here will tell you that Bernie Sanders is a commie Jew. Haha Well 70% of American “Jews” supported Hillary over da commie in 2016. In 2020 the majority supported Biden or E Warren over Sanders da commie, he got 10% support from da Jews in 2020. Our hero Trump had more support from da commie Jews than Bernie…

    All you pro-white activists should probably do a little research on the labor movement here in America. Its was communists and socialist who won the white working class all the rights we enjoyed, that have been being stripped away using this commie red baiting and McCarthyism BS you all love doing so much. It was the fascists, the Klan, right wingers who were doing all they could to stop it. You are the anti-white, you guys are literally your own worst enemy if you are really pro-white, not the commie Jews, wherever they are.. Read about what the BASED Henry Ford did to break the unions at his factories. Haha

    You want refugees to stop coming, stop creating them. You want less immigration, well you probably need to get rid of capitalism. More immigration is profitable for the plutocrats, doesn’t matter if it hurts you.

    Anyhoo, if you want to learn about Israel politics and the parties there I recommend watching David Sheens presentations. Hate to break it to you though, communism or any kind of leftism is virtually nonexistent in “Israel”. Its the closest thing you’ll find to Nazi Germany in the world today. It will sooner or later lead to their own destruction, just as it did for Germany.

    Davids channel:

    • Replies: @mcohen
    , @Anonymous
  84. @Not Only Wrathful

    Oh, I wouldn’t worry about limiting yourself to it here then, extremists are a dime-a-dozen these days. Any faction, any place. Ask the right question, and you’ll get the right response.

    As for mythological terms, well, I call a lot of US economics vampiric, and American imperialism an abomination, but the former isn’t really sucking my blood, and the latter isn’t really anything abnormal or alive, is it? Though, I think if you ask around the world, blood-sucking is a common enough insult, and for a common enough class and ethno group (with some variance locally, of course.)

    Your point would be good on the last part, except for when it comes to general policy and international action. Like that judge who ordered a women jailed for calling the Holocaust a cash cow. Or the people who are arrested or fired on insinuations of “anti-Jewishness.” Linh Dinh got cancelled here for calling out the wrong group, and Unz got banned. I didn’t see any balanced criticism on that coming from majority Jewish groups. You’re also not seeing large numbers of Jews rising up to call out and oppose heavy Jewish involvement in elite society or social institutions.

    Anyhow, I’m sure this won’t convince you, so I’ll give you a chance to prove your point. Go to a public location, or possibly your place of work (assuming it’s in the “West”) and just start talking about Jews the same way the media these days they talk about White People, or people used to talk about Black People or Gypsies.

    I’ll be intrigued to hear your status report. Just to be scientific about it, try it at different places over the course of a month. I’m not going to do that, because I’m not insane. One doesn’t bad mouth Kim in Korea, Islam in Iran, Mao in China, or the Jews here. If you want to travel, keep your mouth shut everywhere on everything, except where it helps.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  85. mcohen says:
    @redmudhooch

    Well said.

    I will go one step further.Most of the pro whites on here are fake and only do for the palstines
    The favourite meme that Jews are not white is the give away.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  86. DrWatson says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    He may not be canceling anyone but he may be contributing to the foundations of “cancel culture” with his theories. Marx was not canceling anyone but in the name of his ideology millions have been canceled and still are.

    I was pointing out the irony that while he is writing about Jewish – White antagonisms, defending the former group at the expense of the latter, in S. Korea they do not make such distinctions (not at least at his university) and his speech is canceled because he is considered there White. Or should we assume that he was “canceled” because he is Jewish?

    • Replies: @DrWatson
  87. DrWatson says:
    @DrWatson

    If you could support your statements with proper arguments and facts, you would not have to resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks, which is your modus operandi, apparently. In almost every comment of yours. I am glad others have pointed this out already so I don’t have to. What is your IQ?

  88. Mefobills says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    LoL. Antisemitism is a learned condition. Most UNZ antisemites are anything but stupid.

    Cofnas agreeing or disagreeing pattern is indicative of deception.

    We have a contradiction: A goy can discern patterns of deception and that somehow makes them stupid.

    Intelligent people not only notice patterns but also are able to resolve contradictions.

  89. @Thomasina

    Exactly, you don’t see yourself at all,

    If you don’t see yourself at all, then you likely did great harm, without even knowing it.

    I would email your exes and apologise to them for your manipulative, objectifying, cruel and abusive behaviour.

    All guesses, but intuition works like that…

    They’ll probably cry with relief that you are no longer walking around, unknowingly immersed in an ocean of your own toxic sludge, while projecting it onto everyone else.

    And what if your intention was exactly that, never really wanting to get to know someone at all, remaining quite separate and detached, but pretending to be part of the whole

    Lol, are you really trying to argue that Jews are narcissistic because they won’t marry you, give you everything and give up their own identity by replacing it with yours’?

    Your need to control and power trip and dominate is not even satisfied by the men you’ve abused, but now you need to abuse whole groups as well?

    Wow, I am guessing you were hideous in your relationships. Probably can’t even let yourself know that. Probably too weak an ego to handle your own darkness and therefore constantly mete it out on those foolish enough to be close to you.

    Incapable of feeling much themselves, the narcissist pays particular attention to what makes you tick.

    You telling yourself that he doesn’t feel much at all is the standard excuse of the abuser. Notice how it conveniently means that you can be as disgusting and hurtful as you want and yet you don’t have to feel guilty? Yeah, that’s how lying to yourself works. It can excuse atrocity. I feel very sorry for those who were in a relationship with you individually.

    And your schtick of taking your own deceitful and toxic relationship dynamics and somehow applying then to Jews and society is stupid. Have you ever seen a therapist?

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  90. @Boomthorkell

    As for mythological terms, well, I call a lot of US economics vampiric, and American imperialism an abomination, but the former isn’t really sucking my blood, and the latter isn’t really anything abnormal or alive, is it?

    Demonisation of a form of economics versus demonisation of a random group of people….

    I’ll be intrigued to hear your status report. Just to be scientific about it, try it at different places over the course of a month. I’m not going to do that, because I’m not insane. One doesn’t bad mouth Kim in Korea, Islam in Iran, Mao in China, or the Jews here. If you want to travel, keep your mouth shut everywhere on everything, except where it helps.

    Your isolated observation supports your worldview, but in the context that you even allude to, which is that you can’t talk that way about any group, bar specially and only “white”, “male” and “straight” people, then you can see there is nothing special about Jews. It is “straight white males”, only, who get special treatment.

    Certainly easier to criticise Jews than blacks in public places.

    Like that judge who ordered a women jailed for calling the Holocaust a cash cow.

    Were she likeable she would be able to say that easily. Humans operate with biases and her extremely obnoxious demeanour means that she gets the short end of the stick. This doesn’t jive with the principle of the law and I object to it, but I don’t have the energy to much care…

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
  91. Schuetze says:
    @mcohen

    A blurb about “The favourite meme that Jews are not white is the give away” is a dead give away that a jewish compulsive liar has written a comment.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/im-jewish-and-dont-identify-as-white-why-must-i-check-that-box.html

    https://www.villagevoice.com/2019/07/25/the-white-issue-jews-are-not-white/

    https://jewishjournal.com/cover_story/295918/were-jews-were-not-white-we-define-ourselves/

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-are-not-white-response-to-haaretz-article/

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-must-stop-identifying-as-white-european/

    https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.com/jews-white-complicated/

    I could keep linking to articles by Jewish publications claiming that Jews aren’t white all day long, but that should suffice.

    Why can’t you people figure out why you are so despised? We know that you lie, you know that you lie, we know that you know that you lie, but the real problem is that you tell so many lies that you cannot recognize the truth even when it is bitch slapping you across the face.

    This entire exchange is also a perfect example of what I wrote in comment 24: “One of the most toxic aspects of the curse of Jewish existence is their rank hypocrisy“. Jews claim to be white when their being white is detrimental to goyim or good for the jews, but when NOT being white is good for the jews, then jews are no longer white. This behaviour is really disgusting, and it is the kind of activity that has gotten jews driven out of 109 countries over the centuries.

  92. Mefobills says:
    @Thomas Faber

    Hitler was a good man who turned into a bag of rotten shit – following his example will lead to doom.

    We don’t need to follow Hitler, and especially Jews for that matter. What we do need to do is learn from the past and not make the same mistakes. We also can learn from the past those things that worked, and would work again in today’s setting.

    Much of what Hitler and the NSDAP party did WOULD work today, and would be of great benefit.

    One of the issues with Jews is they always paint Hitler as some sort of evil creature, but if you actually look at what Hitler said and did, then you cannot make that attribution with a straight face.

    What Schacht and Reinhardt did in terms of NSDAP economics should be on everybody’s bucket list. Using the Bill system to re-industrialize the economy would work wonderfully for any country. The same Bill system can also be used to fund Jew removal. Funding Jew removal should be the first priority, which is a mistake Hitler made, as he wanted to wait to war’s end to deal with the Jew problem. Did I say first priority? Yes, as a strategic matter, ejecting Jews from your civilization is first priority. Tactically, it is easy to do once the money power becomes sovereign.

    If there are any mistakes that Hitler made, that is his biggest one – not understanding the money power enough to avoid war with the Finance Capitalist West. Or rather, Hitler did not listen hard enough to Reinhardt and Schacht. Rienhardt and Schacht could have easily deployed new bills (similar to Oeffa or Mefobills) and directed/channeled it into Havarra.

    We can see echoes of 33-38 today, with Finance Capital and its (((minions))) doing its level best to start a war with a nuclear power – Russia.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
    , @Thomas Faber
  93. Schuetze says:
    @Mefobills

    Hitler’s first move was to remove the Jews from their control of government, education and media, and that is when the kvetching hit the fan. If Hitler had waited to accomplish this first task, likely Judea would have manipulated and cheated to get Hitler elected out of power, or even murdered. The first thing that Judea did after the Jews were removed from their ill gotten positions of power was to declare war on Germany and start their boycott.

    The chess board was already rigged against Hitler anyway, the British would not have allowed a mass migration to Palestine, and Madagascar was an impossibility without the cooperation of England and the US. At Evian in 1938 already it was clear that no one wanted the jews, especially the poor, stinky Ostjuden.

    So even if we ignore the likelihood that Hitler was allowed and supported by the Hebrew in his ascension to power, and that the Nazi boogeyman was 100% necessary to scare the “good” Jews into being willing to leave Europe for Palestine, even with finance by Mefobill, the Zionists both wanted and required their Holocaust. The timing and publicity behind Kaufmann’s and Morgentau’s plans for the Genocide of Germany were clearly part of the grand scheme to force the Germans turn to “unlimited” war.

    Even though the Holocaust never happened, it had clearly been planned since 1905 and earlier. The guilt of this fraudulent holocaust was a prerequisite for the declaration of German guilt after the war which was used to provide all the financing, know how and even labor required to create the infrastructure required for the creation of Eretz Israel. Clearly the jews were not planning on stealing and then creating the country on their own from scratch.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  94. @Schuetze

    Life is short, asshole. If the kids don’t care why should I?

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  95. Anonymous[721] • Disclaimer says:
    @redmudhooch

    Israel is very chummy with most of the far right movements in Europe, just because they hate da Mooslums just like their “Jewish” brethren.

    No, they aren’t. Jewish interest groups, along with American NGOs, set up false front “far right” parties in Europe to box out actual opposition with saturating coverage in the jewish media. Brexit over BNP, Sweden Democrats over Nordic Resistance Movement, etc.

  96. Schuetze says:
    @Jim Christian

    If your kids don’t care then that is because they have you as a father, or, put another way, they as good as don’t have a father at all. Go play golf, the world will be better for it.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  97. @Mefobills

    Hi there;

    Certainly, there is some truth in what you say. But it is not so simple as that.

    Several National Socialist ideas proved themselves to be good, and a solid foundation for a healthy society – many of them had been developed by the astute Friedrich List in the early 19th century. And Hitler was a good man for most of his early life. But he became corrupt, especially due to the influence of his mentor, the homosexual black-magic occultist Dietrich Eckhart, cursed be his name. In the end, Hitler had turned into a deluded megalomaniac, a despicable shitrag, and a cowardly traitor, as he fled to Argentina, leaving the Germans to the hell he had dragged them into.

    Hitlers primary mistake regarding the jews was that he did not separate good jews from bad jews. He even allied himself with the evil elements of Zionism (I think that there were some well-meaning early Zionists, too).

    Blanket anti-semitism, like Hitler expressed it, is a massive mistake – not only is it unjust, intellectually boorish, foolish, and detrimental to human relations, it also plays right into the hands of the Illuminati segment of Jewry, who use it as a tool of manipulation against the big masses of regular jews – who are also fooled by this satanic deception.

    The Protocols, again, because this is so crucial to understand if you actually want to make things better vis-a-vis jews: “we shall control our lesser brethren through anti-semitism“.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  98. anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    If everyone is calling you a crazy anti-Semite…maybe that is because you are?

    the problem is “everyone” almost always turns out to be just a few jews

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  99. Mefobills says:
    @Schuetze

    So, what can we learn about wars between Finance Capitalism and Industrial Capitalism?

    WW2 was a war of finance.

    The American Civil War was because the South was returning to the Colonial System (London Finance Capital).

    The South was mostly up in arms about the Morrell tariffs of 1861. The Tariffs were to limit British goods, to then allow the North to Industrialize. The North did not want the South to sell cotton and other raw materials to London finance, and then to import finished goods from England. The North did not like that the south was filling up with negroes and turning into an extraction economy.

    The mistake the North made? Not returning all of the tariff money to the South, with strings attached of course. If the south bought British goods and an equivalent was available from the North, there would be withholding penalties.

    To enforce the tariffs, it requires close in area denial via Northern navy doing patrols and interdicting sea-borne traffic.

    The war between NSDAP Germany vs the Allies was one of Industrial Capitalism vs Finance Capitalism.

    The point I’m trying to make is that these wars are economic, and there are weak points that can be leveraged. Getting rid of Jews is just one tactic, an important one for sure, but there must be a “whole picture” approach, especially if you are going to war. Know thy enemy.

    Getting rid of Jews helps rid yourself of spies and agents for Mammon (finance capital). Other non-Jews who are agents will also need to be ferreted out and jailed, or put into concentration camps. In the north, Lincoln did just that, especially by jailing many from the press. Hitler did it too, but not enough – he allowed some of the Prussian elite to backstab him.

    Again, it is all about hindsight and learning from mistakes. Hitler did a lot of things right, and some things wrong.

    Hitler did not viciously attack London, the seat of finance capital. Day and night bombing raids on the seat of finance was required. About 700 or so U-boats would have done the trick to interdict and sink merchant traffic to the island.

    Once a country has control of its money, it can channel it to an effect. Ejecting Jews and “paying them to go” to their homeland can be cast as a good thing for them. (Of course they will try to invert reality no matter what.)

    Full spectrum dominance, would go after all the elements of control; NSDAP had that control, but they did not deploy their power strategically enough – and lost.

    Schacht had a plan to pay down the debts, which would have kept Germany out of the war for another couple of years. You can look at the volume of white-goods production, which were still being produced in 38, and that tells the story. Germany had not converted to a wartime economy and was not ready. This was Hitler not understanding the nature of his enemy.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  100. anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    ….that Jews are the most welcomed in and well-hosted minority in human history, valued far above others, for centuries and even millennia, and to this day

    On a different note, if Nazis are the most hated people in the world, in every country, and among every group, then maybe that’s for a reason…

    actually i suspect you have that backwards – jews are hated everywhere they’ve ever been – Russia, Poland, Ukraine, The Baltics, Hungary, Romania, the Middle East, and on and on and on

    one only need recall that ship full of jewish “refugees” before WWII that were rejected by Cuba, the United States, and Canada to realize that jews are probably the most hated people on the planet

  101. Mefobills says:
    @Mefobills

    To prevent any confusion about the U.S. it is important to know when the transition took place:

    The U.S. North was resurrecting the American System of Economy under Lincoln, which used state money channeling into industry.

    Hitler did the same thing, as the American System of Economy (Industrial Capitalism) transmitted to NSDAP through the Kaiser and Bismarck. It was transmitted to the Kaiser through Frederick List. Frederick List was influenced by Matthew and Henry Carey (Lincoln’s economic advisor).

    After 1912 progressive era acts, the U.S. had been infiltrated by our (((friends))) and was converted from an industrial capitalist republic to a finance capitalist democracy.

    Hitler resurrected Industrial Capitalism, and was delivering white goods and higher standard of living to his people. Physical economy was being supported by channeling of state credit into industry, especially via the bill system.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  102. @anon

    Yes, crazy anti-anti-Semites are the problem.

  103. Mefobills says:
    @Thomas Faber

    Yes, it is not simple.

    And I agree, you can convert people rather than killing them. Regular Jews can be reprogrammed, but it would take creating new narrative. In other words, a new Jewish religion would be part of full spectrum dominance. Those Jews not willing to excise the satanic aspects of Judaism, are paid to leave. In this way you get a sorting that is required. Think of it like the Scofield bible in reverse.

    Zionism went wrong when it allied with Rothschild.

    I explain here when Zionism allied with Rothschilds, including the actors and dates:

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-anti-semitic-birth-of-the-zionist-state/#comment-4569533
    https://www.unz.com/article/the-anti-semitic-birth-of-the-zionist-state/#comment-4568876

    And yes, blanket anti-semitism worked to Hitler’s disadvantage, which the Allies used as a propaganda tactic to whip up a frenzy – Hitler wants to kill all of the untermenchen.

    Paying jews to go to their homeland can be cast as pro-semitic, not anti-semitic.

    • Replies: @Thomas Faber
  104. Schuetze says:
    @Mefobills

    I understand your argument, and I have a good idea how damaging financial capitalism is. I think the difference between your viewpoint and mine is that these parasites consider financial capital as a means to an end, not the be-all and end-all.

    Take Israel as a point of discussion. Were the Zionists so horny to have their own country just so they could use Israel as a safe platform to use financial capitalism to exploit the entire planet, or were they using finance capitalism as a tool to create Israel and gain power over the entire planet for other nefarious purposes. I believe that it is the second option. Solomon’s third temple has little to do with finance capitalism and everything to do with Sabatean Frankism, Baal Worship and child sacrifice.

    I think the image below has more to do with the mark of the beast and the beast system than finance capitalism. I think that we are headed for an entirely new financial system based on AI and social credit anyway, and I don’t see how independent judaic usury banking fits into that model.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  105. @Mefobills

    Alternatively, just bring back the old Jewish religion: Original Torah Judaism (not Chabad). There are still some left, and there are some very fine people among them. They are hated with a vengeance by the evil Sabbatean-Frankist-Illuminati jews, who are steeped in wickedness, and who are deliberately stoking anti-semitism (and creating it, too) in order not only to control the big masses of secular jews, but also in the evil hope that the Torah jews will be attacked and possibly destroyed.

    Which would be a great loss for the world. Original Judaism is a genuine path towards God.

    But the evil jews should be exposed. Anti-semitism is just not the way – it simply plays into their hands: hatred feeds on hatred.

    Metaphysical evil must be countered by metaphysical good – there is no other way.

    • Agree: Mulga Mumblebrain
  106. Mefobills says:
    @Thomas Faber

    The Sabbatean Frankist types include others. I call them agents of Mammon.

    Finance capital is usury writ large and is the tap root funding the evil.

    • Replies: @Thomas Faber
  107. Mefobills says:
    @Schuetze

    I agree, things are changing, and the old debt based finance capitalism model must fail.

    Before that happens there is a risk of war, as the clowns who run clown world will lash out.

    The neo-cons religious hatred is discussed here:

    https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2021/04/they-neocons-may-have-anger-issues.html

    (from a Pepe link)

    The bad guys are going to be individually targeted, and are going to have a missile shoved up their ass, something that Hitler couldn’t do to the war-mongering finance capitalists in London and Wall Street.

    He (Putin on targeting) didn’t mean the White House, Pentagon or, say, Capitol–no, coordinates of those are contained in the guidance computers of Russia’s weapon systems since my tender childhood. Same as Kremlin or Russia’s government House are in the American ones. Nothing new here. This is not news and this is not what Putin was talking about. As I state constantly, modern weapon systems have a an unprecedented precision and accuracy. You can today, literally, fly a cruise missile into the window of a house if you have to. Russia’s stand-off systems, moreover, have unprecedented ranges. So, if any of the warmongers thinks that they maybe safe in New Zealand or Patagonia–they are really wrong. Nuclear weapons are easy, but those are non-nuclear ones which allow to receive targeting and deliver a salvo of cruise missiles anywhere in the world by means of moving a submarine into firing position anywhere around the globe, including but not limited to Patagonia, New Zealand, Australia or Antarctica, for a good measure.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  108. DrWatson says:
    @Schuetze

    Interesting observation. What causes the difference in your opinion? Are Americans really that much dumber/less perceptive than Europeans? Their insulation from the rest of the world? Naivity? Good will and their history?

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  109. @Thomas Faber

    Seemingly the Jews lived pretty peacefully with the goyim in Baghdad and Mesopotamia for centuries, after Hadrian’s expulsion up to the foundation of Israel. The same peace, with occasional outbursts, ubiquitous throughout history between groups when hateful agitators get to work, lasted until 1492, in Spain, then the Jews expelled moved to the Ottoman Empire and Italy, if memory serves.
    As you observe, hatred feeds on hatred, and serves the Talmudists well. Hatred is, after all, much of the ‘message’ of Judaism. Xenophobic fear and hatred of the rest of humanity by a group brainwashed from birth to see themselves as unique, indeed as ‘Gods Upon the Earth’. Of course most Jews don’t live out this insanity, but the powerful parasites and the fundamentalist loonies do, and humanity must be protected from them, but not at the expense of innocent Jews. But if atrocities like the destruction of UK Labour through outright lies and vicious slander continue, there will be an outburst of rage and hatred at some time.

    • Replies: @Thomas Faber
  110. @Mefobills

    That’s a very cogent article. The Zionazis are just packets of hatred and the lust for vengeance in quasi-human form. Hatred and fear (even more psychically dangerous)of the goyim, the heart of Judaism from the beginning (the true ‘Oldest Hatred’). Hatred and fear born of the Nazi Judeocide. And hatred of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine who must be disappeared so that the Chosen can have ‘their’ lebensraum, as ‘promised’ by their psychopathic ego-projection upon the Universe.
    Sane Jews have long lived with this ocean of fear and hatred, and not been overwhelmed by it, but the religious nut-jobs and Zionazis like Bibi et al, have been transmogrified by it into agents of Evil. Mind you, most of the West is run and controlled by similar psychopaths, with different antecedents.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Anonymous
  111. Mefobills says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Agree. I always wonder, How do you staff your civilizational hierarchy?

    The worst types are drawn to power.

  112. Anon[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mack2

    Last gasp? Last quenching of thirst at the well?

  113. Anon[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnPlywood

    Says a low IQ jew who can’t manage to see that the rebbes are your heart and soul and are dictating the policy of “secular” jews.

    The rebbes still own you. They keep a stock of orthodox jews to maintain the culture/genes and a stock of “atheist” jews to unleash upon host nations. You may be a destroyer, destined for sin. In that case you’re an outsider who is still serving the rebbes.

    You are being used just as all “little jews” are used. You’re in a bind. Reason your way out of it.

    • Thanks: Schuetze
    • LOL: JohnPlywood
  114. Schuetze says:
    @DrWatson

    I was raised in California where few people have generationally deep roots. In European villages families have been living among the same family groups for many generations. Stories, and attitudes, about transgression by jews against Goyim are deeper rooted. American’s brush it off as “old world”, but Europeans have been living with in their midst for centuries longer than America even existed.
    Plus I think Europeans are not only better educated, they also have a deeper understanding of history.

  115. @Not Only Wrathful

    Well, you know, I’m not the one who told anyone or anything to act demonic. That’s on them. Not every person…but you know, groups are groups. Not every Englishman colonized India, but the English colonized and exploited India. Not every American invaded Afghanistan, but Americans invaded Afghanistan. Not every Jew is a vampiric parasite working to destroy nations from the inside in pursuit of ethnocentric goals…but there it is. Fair is fair. I’m specifically not hating on the Vietnamese, because what did they do to anyone outside Vietnam? Gypsies don’t involve themselves in national politics, so they too are “okay” (if troublesome.)

    I look forward to your scientific report on whether there are personal consequences for you in regards to “speaking negatively” of “Jewish Power” in a public and work environment under your own identity over an extended period of time.

    Likeable or not is not for you to decide. There was a judge, an environment, and a law. A person, likeable or not, won’t be burned for witchcraft if witchcraft isn’t a crime. She was punished for what she said, like the Black Nick Cannon.

    Still, Jews aren’t really the cause of everything. Just a symptom and a force.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  116. @Mefobills

    Well, that makes sense.

    We use the language somewhat differently, but I see your point.

    Of course there are other groups than the Sabbatean-Frankist-Illuminati matrix. There are also the Jesuit elite, and freemasons, as well as central bankers, Frankenstein technocrats, and criminal gangster-syndicates.

    But all of these groups are working together, while at the same time, I am quite certain, they are jocking for the upper hand, like a pack of wolves. They are intensely competitive and distrustful, and their deepest loyalty is to themselves, each and every one. If they have to sacrifice one of their “fellows”, and can see a gain in it, they have no qualms about it, and will do it if they consider it worth the risk.

    Personifying their driving motive as Mammon also makes sense – unbridled greed and wanton waste. One could also personify it as Satan – corruption, evil, a perverted lust, and a narcissistic pleasure in the egotistic self and in its domination of others, including by inflicting pain, or as Lucifer, the naked worship of power and knowledge, unrestrained by wisdom or a deeper understanding.

    Well spoken, sir.

    • Thanks: Mefobills
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  117. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Genuine Torah jews are peaceful and very moral beings. Some of them are also very intelligent, righteous, and wise. This is why the evil, satanic jews harbor such a deep hatred for them. And why evil jews in some cases in Europe would sacrifice little children in gruesome ways, and then dump the bodies in the open and blame the Torah jews. A bestial, monstrous, and despicable deception!

    Torah jews were also living peacefully in Jerusalem, together with christians and muslims, for many hundreds of years. Each faith community had its own part of the city, and each took care of its own affairs – excepting the matters that the varying occupation governments imposed on all 3. There was exchange between the communities, by friendship, trade, cooperation, and, I must think, sometimes love.

    There are several good examples of contemporary genuine Torah jews. One is Rabbi Marvin Antelman, who wrote “To Eliminate the Opiate”, about the roots of marxism and communism, and about spiritual wickedness in certain schools of Judaism, which is a highly enlightening book (available on PDF).

    Another is Kevin Abrams, who together with Scott Lively wrote “The Pink Swastika”, about homosexuality in the nazi party (there was a lot, especially among the brown shirts). This book is also highly valuable, and is available on PDF.

  118. @Boomthorkell

    Well, you know, I’m not the one who told anyone or anything to act demonic. That’s on them.

    When you think a whole group of people you really know nothing about, you wouldn’t even recognise 1% of them on the street, are acting demonic, you’re projecting

    I look forward to your scientific report on whether there are personal consequences for you in regards to “speaking negatively” of “Jewish Power” in a public and work environment under your own identity over an extended period of time.

    As I said, there’d be fewer consequences than complaining about pretty much any group except “white”, ” male” and “straight”. You’d get as many consequences if you attacked Irish Americans in the same way. You’d maybe even get as many if you attacked Norwegian Americans as a group. Jews are far down the totem pole…yes, probably above Norwegians (when they’re a minority), but certainly below trans, blacks, etc

    And before you object please actually look up what projecting means…

    • LOL: Boomthorkell
  119. Anonymous[721] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    The Zionazis

    There is no such thing as “zionazi”. It is a manufactured term for those who fancy themselves on the Soviet wing of the postwar order to deflect away from owning the consequences of WWII. The National Socialists fought against the zionists. The Allies fought for them.

    Own it.

  120. Thomasina says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    Yes, the narcissist, although lacking any insight into what makes himself tick, does NOT lack insight into what makes his partner tick (hopes, dreams, fears). In fact, he makes it his business to know this. He intentionally seeks out a partner who is trusting and naive, a partner who neither “knows” nor “sees” themselves, but doesn’t “see” the narcissist either, a person who has not developed a solid sense of self. Not someone a healthy individual would ever choose, but a prime candidate for a narcissist who wants to manipulate, deceive, control and exploit. In this situation the narcissist holds all the cards.

    And since narcissists are already arrogant, entitled, lack empathy and have feelings of grandiosity (the “chosen” ones), they are free to go to town, and they do.

    They also have an obsession with winning. Whenever their behavior is called into question, they can become extremely vindictive. They will argue incessantly, gaslight you (make you doubt your own reality), lie, blame shift (blame someone else), attempt to confuse and confound, steer the conversation off topic. Anything to deflect. Above all, whatever happens, it is never their fault. They take NO responsibility.

    Whenever they feel the slightest hint of criticism or slight, you’d better get out your oversized umbrella because a deluge of insults is about to rain down on your head. Or maybe build an arc.
    How dare you think of saying anything critical about them!

    And I almost forgot the “victim” card. If they can convince others they have been victimized, they will play up this card to its fullest. I mean, who is going to call out a “victim”? Certainly not a naive, empathetic partner or a good and caring Christian society.

    These narcissistic individuals (or groups) create chaos and havoc wherever they go, destroying lives (and countries) in the process. This goes on until the partner (or the country) develops a firm sense of self, finally “sees” the narcissist (who they are, what they’ve done), decides they’ve had enough and asks the narcissistic individual (or group) to leave. This happens frequently.

    In the case of a country, the narcissistic group might want to pass speech laws preventing any form of criticism or disclosure, or use blackmail, threats, etc. Maybe even flood the country with new immigrants, thereby diluting the host population’s voice.

    Well, that’s all I’ve got for now. Hope it’s helpful. Hey, you’re not David Cole, are you? It’s just that your last response to me resembled David Cole’s insulting reply to Ron Unz.

    Sounds like you could use a little pick-me-up. I suggest listening to some upbeat music. Try ELO’s “Mr. Blue Sky”.

  121. @Thomasina

    Alternative hypothesis:

    All of your energy for politics comes from you being unable to face the toxic role you played in your own relationship dynamics and thus you need to pretend that all of that upswelling information from your unconscious is really some sort of grandiose care for the future of civilization or something?

    It is certainly easier than you facing up to yourself, now isn’t it…

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  122. Thomasina says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    Thank you for your kind concern, but I don’t see it that way.

    Thanks also for reminding me of another tactic liberally used by narcissists: projection. Projection is unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else. Here’s something interesting I found:

    “There are five very distinct ways that a person can project onto someone else.

    Calling you names/making assumptions/accusing
    Mimicking and exaggerating
    Project their own views of themselves on others
    Play the victim
    Turn the tables/the ‘it’s you’ defense”

    Maybe you’re familiar with this already, but others might find it helpful.

  123. @Thomasina

    Thank you for your kind concern, but I don’t see it that way.

    You won’t, until you decide that you don’t want the cycle to repeat and find the courage to change

    In the meantime, your comparing of the established individuals within the West, the most ruthless and effective peoples in history, to poor, naive Persephone, is so obviously stupid to anyone who is not projecting, that you and your politics will remain on the margins of the margins until they finish fading away

    It would also do you good to remember that Persephone herself cast a very long shadow. And then to just imagine how long, dark and unexplored it would have been, had she continued to play the waif into old age…underneath every waif is a black widow waiting to drain their victim, how do you not even begin to recognise that at your age?

  124. Mefobills says:
    @Thomas Faber

    It also gives them a god.

    Mammon or Moloch.

    The idea of a single god may not be a good thing because it forecloses the mind.

    I use Jew to mean agents of Mammon, but I’m well aware there are many simple Jews who want to do the right thing and are not agents.

    Jews do operate collectively as an in group so I attribute collectively. The religion desperately needs reform so I have chosen to use a broad brush, which may be unfair

    • Replies: @Thomas Faber
  125. @Thomasina

    You are indeed on to something. I remember when I read the Wikipedia article on narcissism I thought: “but this is exactly the description of the Jewish character!”
    Either the Jews developed their narcissist character due to their “chosen people” complex, or they were narcissists already from the beginning and therefore developed their “chosen people” complex. An isolated narcissist is a nuisance to his environment, but a well organized tribe of narcissists is a threat to the whole world.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  126. @Not Only Wrathful

    And the ignorant, hate-filled anti-White blabbers incoherently yet again. What ever happened to your oft-repeated claims of cognitive adequacy? Clearly yet another long-discredited semitic canard.
    Sad!

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  127. @Franklin Ryckaert

    LARPing Little Lord Fauntleroy, with a sigh, steps up to support Shelob masked as Persephone.

    Together, they bob along the surface pretending to a spotless virtue, while society at large recoils from their monstrous (self)-hate menacing in the deeps beneath.

    Nevermind that their fantasy of Jews, as a collective of narcissists who rule Europeans, begs the question: what type of people marry narcissists?

    A tip, I’ve described the male and female type above! Also note, both are borderline psychotic and narcissistic. Weird how you two’s personal lives have been perfectly reflected in the politics of two continents?

    Or maybe, to a toxic individual in denial, all “others” look toxic?

  128. @James Forrestal

    If my post was “hate-filled” and “anti-white” to you, then you are wearing some very dark glasses.

  129. @Schuetze

    Actually my kids are armed and agree fully with The Talk, the Truth About Urban Blacks. They’re on board. If their contemporaries are ignorant, fuck em. They ain’t my blood and are unreliable allies, traitors even, in any case. They sicken me. So yeah, fuck em.

  130. @Thomasina

    Do you know the giant black spider “Shelob” from Lord of the Rings?

    She represents a certain type of sadism. She, hiding her true self, poisons her prey and sends them to sleep, before wrapping them in a false cocoon. She then feeds off their silent despair, while making busy, spinning decorative webs, for her own amusement. Eventually she consumes the prey and they die of some cancer or other disease of the soul-sucked body turning against itself. Or they manage to wake up and, with the grace of God, escape.

    The type of man she esnares is often hubristic. He has left his good common sense friends behind, or has decided their guidance is not needed. He convinces himself that he must soldier on, that it is his duty as a man or whatever else his vanity is, and part of that journey is passing, without fear, through Shelob’s lair; but really he wants to be poisoned and cocooned to take the burden of power off from him – and people really do get what they want…

    Once in her web, he faces a choice, to sacrifice his egotistical hubris and be ready to move on/to seek help from those around him, or stay there and slowly die in darkness.

    Of course, this narrative is harsh to Shelob, who will rage at her prey’s escape, rage that somehow the one who fled and did not rage, is the narcissist!

    Did not the man voluntarily come into her lair? Did he not promise a lifetime of allowing her to slowly feed off him? Did he not encourage her to be dependent, vulnerable even? Didn’t poor Shelob give her all by allowing herself to be known and receive love?

    The truth is that the two deserved each other and needed each other to learn how to become more complete, and so, the real test of courage and character is who learned and changed with the lesson that life offered them, and, perversely, who lay in a lair of their own hatred demonising the other, while swearing revenge.

    Beauty will be achieved when both can look back with gratitude for their experience.

    If not, patterns repeat, lifetime after lifetime, until you choose to change. Enjoy!

  131. @Mefobills

    Some very tricky and profound things you talk about there.

    I think one God is allright, as long as one treats others fairly – and in the best case, understands the there is in fact only one God, called many different things, and understood in many different ways.

    I don’t think that Judaism, if properly understood, needs much reform. The Torah is a genuine scripture, and if approached with humility and wisdom can lead people to both God and Truth. There are some who do this, although they are in a quite small minority.

    It is correct that there are many jews who are wildly deluded, and do not understand the Torah – also some of those who call themselves “Torah jews”, and I am glad that you understand that there are nuances among the jewish people. While it can sometimes be allright to paint with the broadest brush, I think it is quite risky when dealing with jews. They are not all of them acting as a collective. Look at Ron Unz, to take only one out of many examples. They are individuals, although, as you truly say, many of them move as a collective. But is not really Just towards those who do not – who are innocent in that regards – to paint them with the same brush.

    Another reason that it is risky to just say “the jews” is that the collective I just mentioned can be basically conceptualized as a big mass of ignorant, well-meaning jews, and a little, evil, organized and very powerful group in the middle – who, as the Protocols tell us: “control their lesser brethren through anti-semitism”.

    Therefore, if we simply say “the jews”, we are helping to strengthen the bond between the evil, organized jews, and the big mass of the ignorant, who are indoctrinated to understand any negative mention of “the jews” (as in “all jews”) as anti-semitism. Thus – very risky! Personally, I avoid it.

  132. Mefobills says:

    Therefore, if we simply say “the jews”, we are helping to strengthen the bond between the evil, organized jews, and the big mass of the ignorant, who are indoctrinated to understand any negative mention of “the jews” (as in “all jews”) as anti-semitism. Thus – very risky! Personally, I avoid it.

    Point well received, and I have had similar thoughts.

    As someone who is sympathetic to national socialism, especially after years of economic study, then my position has to be nuanced as well. Others have not gone through the process.

    Generally I like to swing a big hammer, and then try to explain that there are always exceptions to the rule, and even Hitler allowed exceptions. In other words, it takes some shock therapy and then nuance.

    Maybe it takes both of us, working our different methods to be effective.

    It is a human condition, where some humans have chosen to walk on the dark side, or somehow they found themselves there. Of course there are many honorable Jews, just as there are many honorable Muslims and so on. Individually, people have made a choice, even in the face of bad narrative.

    “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  133. Let’s see….

    Ben Wattenberg said that when whites become a minority, it “will be a transcendent moment.”

    Mark Potok has the countdown legend for whites becoming a minority taped right to his office wall.

    Susan Sontag called whites “a cancer on the face of the earth.”

    Noel Ignatiev said that whiteness “would have to be eradicated.”

    To paraphrase Tim Wise…..”Tick tock tick tock…..the sound of whites losing their power!”

    I don’t even need to quote Barbara Spectre as her ghoulishness is notorious.

    I could literally spend the entire day listing all of the nasty shitty anti-white Pollards that form the upper crust of media, academia, and government. It’s astonishing when you begin to recognize the full depth of the problem.

    KMAC, like myself, had always admired the jewish people, and was once a liberal. It was his research into jewish influence on immigration that changed his mind, as he was able to finally see that most of jewish intellectual effort is simply ethnic warfare against white Christian people.

  134. Schmidt says:

    Cofnas’s Philosophia piece is not just a rehash of his original paper, it actually contains a pretty coherent rebuttal to the argument of Ch. 7 of Culture of Critique, probably the most important chapter of the book. KMac apparently has no rejoinder, since he never replied to Cofnas himself, and this essay by Andrew Joyce does nothing to negate Cofnas’s comments on the Jewish role in the 1965 law.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS