The Culture of Critique Cries Out in Pain as it Strikes MacDonald

cucking_jewing_jewingHas anyone provided a more thorough, more reasonable critique of jewing than Kevin MacDonald? From what I’ve seen, the mild-mannered professor makes a meticulous case, constructed mainly by citing prominent jews.

Judge for yourself. MacDonald focuses on immigration in Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. The specific link I most often refer to is Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review, Population and Environment, 19, 295-355, 1998. These works and more are gathered at MacDonald’s Publications on Jews and Western Culture.

In Žižek, Group Selection, and the Western Culture of Guilt MacDonald notes the “few very articulate defenders of the basic ideas expressed in Culture of Critique” commenting on a post by Steve Sailer. Among the best is Ben Tillman, who distilled MacDonald’s trilogy like so:

Book 1 & Thesis 1: A Jewish group evolutionary strategy developed.

Book 2 & Thesis 2: In some historical instances, Europeans developed group evolutionary strategies to compete with the Jewish group.

Book 3 & Thesis 3: A number of Jewish intellectual movements of the 20th century were designed to prevent European-derived peoples from developing group strategies to compete with the Jewish group.

MacDonald himself summarizes the third volume this way:

A major theme of Culture of Critique is that Jewish intellectual movements developed theories which had a patina of science and according to which anti-Semitism had nothing to do with the behavior of Jews but was entirely an issue of the psychopathology of non-Jews. These theories were then promulgated by the elite media and Jewish activist organizations, and they came to pervade the academic world

Indeed, beyond merely gathering pages of names and incriminating statements by jews, MacDonald has identified a characteristic pattern of organized but veiled ethnic aggression, a recurring collective behavior he refers to as jewish intellectual movements. He has described, for instance, how this pattern fits neoconservatism. The summary of his argument, and his response to jew critics, is of particular relevance to the recent critique by Nathan Cofnas linked and quoted below:

I will argue that the main motivation for Jewish neoconservatives has been to further the cause of Israel; however, even if that statement is true, it does not imply that all Jews are neoconservatives. I therefore reject the sort of arguments made by Richard Perle, who responded to charges that neoconservatives were predominantly Jews by noting that Jews always tend to be disproportionately involved in intellectual undertakings, and that many Jews oppose the neoconservatives. This is indeed the case, but leaves open the question of whether neoconservative Jews perceive their ideas as advancing Jewish interests and whether the movement itself is influential. An important point of the following, however, is that the organized Jewish community has played a critical role in the success of neoconservatism and in preventing public discussion of its Jewish roots and Jewish agendas.

Similar scrutiny can and has exposed the “jewish intellectual movements” driving anti-”racism”, the legalization of pornography, the relentless promotion of race-mixing and sexual degeneracy, civil rights legislation, gun control legislation, “hate” legislation, holocaustianity, and other aspects of semitical correctness. Neoconservativism is just a relatively recent and egregious example of jews hijacking the minds and bodies of non-jews to serve the jews, and in the process causing incalculable suffering and death.

MacDonald’s key observation is that jews, as a group, are hyperconscious of themselves and their common interests as a group, distinct from every other group, but most especially Whites. The jews have made it taboo if not illegal to criticize the most explicit facets of their jewing. But more to the point, it is difficult to assess the full extent of the havok jews have wrought because, as MacDonald has documented, the jews have taken pains to disguise much of their jewing as something else. And the cover afforded by such dissembling and dissimulation only makes it easier for the jews to conspire, to silence critics, and ultimately to shift the blame elsewhere, usually by pinning it on Whites.

The jews are so ethnocentric it boggles even a race-conscious White mind. When they’re not shamelessly obsessing over what is or isn’t “good for the jews”, they’re psychopathologizing Whites for trying to do anything similar. The jewsmedia spews an endless stream of hyperbolic hand-wringing whose primary concern is either “anti-semitism” or “White supremacism”. The latest trend is to screech about both at the same time. The most sensible conclusion is that jews see themselves as utterly distinct from Whites, that they perceive Whites not as peers, but as their enemy, and thus as a legitimate target for any form of depredation.

While discussing Zizek’s review in 2014 (which turned out to be a plagiarization of Stanley Hornbeck’s review from 1999) MacDonald notes the dearth of serious criticism of his work. His long wait for a formal critique is finally over.

Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, by Nathan Cofnas:

MacDonald argues that a suite of genetic and cultural adaptations among Jews constitutes a “group evolutionary strategy.” Their supposed genetic adaptations include, most notably, high intelligence, conscientiousness, and ethnocentrism. According to this thesis, several major intellectual and political movements, such as Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and multiculturalism, were consciously or unconsciously designed by Jews to (a) promote collectivism and group continuity among themselves in Israel and the diaspora and (b) undermine the cohesion of gentile populations, thus increasing the competitive advantage of Jews and weakening organized gentile resistance (i.e., anti-Semitism). By developing and promoting these movements, Jews supposedly played a necessary role in the ascendancy of liberalism and multiculturalism in the West. While not achieving widespread acceptance among evolutionary scientists, this theory has been enormously influential in the burgeoning political movement known as the “alt-right.” Examination of MacDonald’s argument suggests that he relies on systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts. It is argued here that the evidence favors what is termed the “default hypothesis”: Because of their above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements, including conservative movements, that were not overtly anti-Semitic.

Even if Pinker was right that MacDonald’s theories did not have enough prima facie merit to warrant attention in 2000, developments in the past 18 years have changed the situation. There are at least three reasons to give MacDonald a hearing.

First, some respected psychologists and evolutionary theorists have reported that they found value in MacDonald’s work.

. . .

Second, it is an undeniable fact that, in the past few hundred years, Jews have had a disproportionate influence on politics and culture in the Western world, if not the whole world.

. . .

Third and perhaps most important, though, is that MacDonald’s work has been influential—enormously so—in a certain segment of the lay community, namely, among anti-Semites and adherents of the burgeoning movement known as the “alt-right.” It is hard to overstate his influence among this group.

. . .

The refusal of scholars to engage with MacDonald has had unintended negative consequences. Many of his enthusiasts see him as credible because there has never been a serious academic refutation of his theories. The strategy employed 18 years ago—declaring his work to be anti-Semitic and/or to not reach the threshold to warrant scholarly attention—had the doubly unfortunate effect of intimidating scholars with a legitimate interest in the topic of Jewish evolution and behavior, and creating a perception among some laypeople—even if it was false—that MacDonald was being persecuted by the academic community.

In recent years, Jews have continued to produce examples favoring the default hypothesis. The most high-profile opponent of liberal activism in social science is, without question, Jonathan Haidt (see Duarte et al. 2015), who is Jewish. The most high-profile advocate of incorporating Darwinism into the social sciences is another Jew, Steven Pinker (e.g., Pinker 2002). The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)—the most prominent organization that defends free speech on campus, primarily the speech of conservatives—was founded by Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate, both Jewish.

MacDonald paints a picture of Jews as hypocrites who impose liberalism on gentiles and adopt nationalism for themselves, but he ignores the fact that many of the most influential Jews seem to promote liberalism and multiculturalism for both gentiles and Jews.

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

But misrepresenting sources and distorting history are not part of the methods of evolutionary psychology, or any other legitimate academic discipline.

Cofnas’s arguments are not new. He has essentially formalized, with a “patina of science”, the kind of excuses and sneers jews and crypto-jews have been making for years. Unable to refute the quotes and facts MacDonald cites, the best his critics can do is insinuate that MacDonald is the problem, that his scholarly criticism is somehow unfairly biased against jews.

This is not just the standard jew take on MacDonald, but smacks of the standard jew psychopathologization of “anti-semitism”, as MacDonald himself has described. Crying “anti-semitism” generally suffices as an argument-ending trump card for jews. Indeed, while implying MacDonald is biased against jews, Cofnas chutzpathically displays his own bias in their favor, lamenting the increasing popularity of MacDonald’s insights among “anti-semites”. By his own account he’s seeking to counter the supposed “negative consequences” of MacDonald’s indictment of jews, as opposed to the harm caused by their jewing.

As with Perle’s excuse for neoconservative jewing, Cofnas puts forth a supposed “above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas” and “not all jews” as the excuse for anti-White jewing more generally. In short, Cofnas’ supposed “default hypothesis” is nothing more than his desired conclusion – heebs dindu nuffins! – smuggled in as an unsubstantiated premise.

What the Alt-Right Gets Wrong About Jews, published by alt-jewsmedia outlet Quillette, is another variation of Cofnas’ academic argument, though here the driving concern – that White racial consciousness is rising, and this isn’t good for the jews – is made more plain.

For many on the alt-right, every grievance is, at root, about Jews.

According to MacDonald, Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy.” Jews possess both genetic and cultural adaptations (including, on the genetic side, high IQ and ethnocentrism) that allow them to develop successful intellectual movements that undermine gentile society and promote their own group continuity. “Jewish intellectual movements,” MacDonald argues, are led by charismatic figures analogous to rabbis. They attack white nationalism while promoting Jewish nationalism, and use pseudoscience to “pathologize” anti-Semitism, which in reality is a justified response to “Jewish aggression.” According to MacDonald, Jewish intellectual movements include Freudianism, Frankfurt School critical theory, and multiculturalism. These movements, MacDonald claims, taught white gentiles to reject ethnocentrism and accept high levels of nonwhite immigration to their countries while tolerating Jewish ethnocentrism and racially restrictive immigration policies in Israel.

MacDonald’s theory and the anti-Semitism of many on the alt-right are largely reactions to the perceived liberalism of Jews. One of us (Cofnas) has just published an academic paper that examines MacDonald’s most influential book, The Culture of Critique, and finds that it is chock full of misrepresented sources, cherry-picked facts, and egregious distortions of history.

But MacDonald seems to be right that Jews were disproportionately involved in radical leftist political movements in the twentieth century, and in the US Jews tend to vote Democrat. We think this can be explained by the high average IQ of Jews in combination with their being a persecuted minority, which has tended to push them toward political views that emphasize social toleration and the free movement of people. In other words, MacDonald reverses the correct order of causation: rather than Jews inviting persecution by advocating cosmopolitan policies that thwart the interests of Europeans, Jews advocated cosmopolitanism as a predictable response to persecution.

Persecution of Jews began for religious reasons in the Middle Ages and morphed into political persecution as Jews began to climb the social ladder, and political leaders saw them as a useful out-group to use as a scapegoat for people’s economic and social woes. For example, when Italian traders inadvertently brought the Black Plague from Asia to Europe, thousands of Jews were murdered in retaliation when Christian peasants decided that the Jews had deliberately infected them.

We don’t think MacDonald will be able to rescue his hypothesis, built as it is on misrepresented sources and distortions. But for some dishonest alt-right leaders, the literal truth of his ideas is probably not that important. They need an enemy to unify their movement. There is no more convenient a people to play this role than Jews.

These are the most common tropes jews of every stripe – “liberal” or “conservative” – reach for when trying to jewsplain how jews and their jewing aren’t the problem, non-jews are. The jew version of history – this one-sided persecution narrative, this self-image as eternally victimized outsiders, we wuz slaves in Egypt – is the same story this parasitic tribe has always told, and has always used to justify their vindicitve malevolence towards their hosts.

For jews, every grievance is about “anti-semitism”, which is, at root, a result of jewing. Scapegoating, for example, is a jewy word for a ritualistically jewy behavior. The term is almost always used whenever someone is fretting that jews might be held to account for what jews have done – to transfer the sins of jews to someone else.

Cofnas, for example, tries to excuse jewing by shifting blame to MacDonald and more broadly to uppity Whites. His behavior confirms MacDonald’s arguments rather than refuting them.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

84 thoughts on “The Culture of Critique Cries Out in Pain as it Strikes MacDonald”

  1. By all means, read it. Just don’t forget that MacDonald’s thesis is the same thesis we’ve had since these things first started showing up, trading us broken stuff, dumping funny things down the wells, and inviting their darker friends to stay with us forever.

    It’s good if CoC speaks a dialect of respectable-like modernity, and helps some people wake up who wouldn’t have otherwise, but we shouldn’t sell our ancestors short and pretend anything about CoC is new. Jewish behavior has been known, and documented and written about, for centuries. It’s sadly hilarious how people can read it now and not recognize it as an overdone sequel. Maybe in 2418 someone will publish a new groundbreaking book about how they’ve figured out that Jews are parasites on host societies.

    Forcing us to change our dialect on the topic every few years is kind of like inflating our currencies and crashing our economies in the sense of how Jews keep us perpetually off balance and unable to use the advantages we keep generating to cure ourselves. We *know* putting Jews in charge of all our money and exchange is wrong, but somehow, it keeps happening. Same with our culture. If we even survive this handful of centuries, we need to find some way to purify this planet, or it’s just going to happen again. We have to stop dismissing old wisdom as outdated and getting excited by something “new.” It’s like a chick in some medieval marketplace getting excited about some new style of necklace, and encouraging all her friends to buy one. Leave the fucking trinkets alone, save your coins for your kids, and wear grandma’s old necklace instead, it’s just fine; sheesh.

  2. we shouldn’t sell our ancestors short and pretend anything about CoC is new

    . . .

    Forcing us to change our dialect on the topic every few years is kind of like inflating our currencies and crashing our economies in the sense of how Jews keep us perpetually off balance and unable to use the advantages we keep generating to cure ourselves.

    Yes. It is that elementary.

    Moralizing is the jews’ ur-intellectual movement. The first and oldest mass media was literally dedicated to broadcasting their narrative. Defining themselves as good, and anyone they designate as an enemy as evil, because reasons, is the most fundamental fraud they perpetrate. That’s the “default hypothesis” greasing the skids for all the rest.

  3. KMac’s conclusion:

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

    This caps a 40-odd page response. Not to be too hard on him, but MacDonald is too charitable, too willing to play along with the jew charade. He has thoroughly documented the who, what, when, where, and how of jewing, yet I daresay he fails to fully accept the most important implications of his own work – that jews lie, that they are hyperconscious, that they hyperconsciously moralize and organize and see themselves as distinct from, superior to, and in opposition to Whites, and that Whites have as a rule failed to consciously recognize this jew hostility, much less reciprocate. If anyone is being self-deceptive about any of this it is relatively demoralized, disorganized, and self-concerned Whites.

    The crux of Cofnas’ disingenuous argument is to paint jewry and their jewing as divided, even though every jew knows that their disagreements flow from and float atop a deeper consensus – whatever’s best for the jews. The watchword for this game is “monolith”, as in, “the jews are not a monolith!”. Notice the contradiction? “This CATEGORY is CATEGORICALLY not a CATEGORY!” Tellingly, the jews perceive any and all reactions to jewing as a monolithic “anti-semitism” which they monolithically characterize as a literal disease. Their game is to use this ineffably jewy never-ending screechy hair-splitting on every subject under the sun – two jews, three opinions about what’s best for the jews – as a distraction from what rightly should be the overriding concern for any non-jew vis-a-vis jews, namely jew virulence, the toxic impact jewing has on non-jews. Any interlocuter who tries to make “anti-semitism” the overriding concern is giving the game away.

  4. “For example, [insert some one-sided jewy version of history here].”

    The irony of jews so frequently and confidently invoking “scapegoating”/”pogrom”/”blood libel” stories is two-fold. First, they’re acknowledging that deadly conflicts have chronically arisen between themselves and their various hosts. Second, they’re shamelessly blaming it all entirely on those hosts. I.e., Parasite Lives Matter.

  5. In other words, MacDonald reverses the correct order of causation: rather than Jews inviting persecution by advocating cosmopolitan policies that thwart the interests of Europeans, Jews advocated cosmopolitanism as a predictable response to persecution.

    So what? They’re still treasonous, civilization-destroying, nation-wrecking, genocidal racists, how they came to be destructive racists is irrelevant. Is there any major Jewish organization that doesn’t support mass non-white, even mass Muslim immigration into every country in the West?

    Jews advocated cosmopolitanism as a predictable response to persecution. These Jews had no right to be in any country in the West. Driven out at spear point these poor, “poisecuted” Jews couldn’t wait to bribe their way back in. Why? Because they prospered as parasites by exploiting the natives, practicing a sort of soft racial colonialism. They advocated cosmopolitanism in order to cement their presence among their victims to facilitate that exploitation. Otherwise why would they stay where they’re not wanted? Same goes for every other non-white “anti-racist” in Western countries. Or for that matter the government, the Pentagon and Wall Street as well. “Anti-racism” is the atomization of whites in order to make exploitation, in various ways, of them easier. It has indeed become a code-word for you know what.

  6. “Anti-racism” is the atomization of whites in order to make exploitation, … of them easier

    BINGO, dude nailed it!

    ( Also, to deter us from the natural path of breeding better. To keep us from having healthy, bright, strong families with lots of kids.)

  7. They always pull that “PERSECUTION ” nonsense , because they know Whites are a bunch of schmaltzy schmucks.

  8. I disagree with High Arka and Tan above who agree that our predecessors already had MacDonald’s arguments filed and pending.

    Previous generations have always had to work with versions of antisemitism that were severely flawed, based on supernatural nonsense or otherwise disputable claims of an historical or phenotypical or psychological nature.

    MacDonald in rooting our conflict in biological sciences, when after all this is a purely biological conflict, gave us the means to argue our position accurately and effectively for the very first time. Even if the buffoon won’t learn his own lessons.

  9. “First, they’re acknowledging that deadly conflicts have chronically arisen between themselves and their various hosts. Second, they’re shamelessly blaming it all entirely on those hosts. I.e., Parasite Lives Matter.”

    all the while patting each others backs for [insert some jewy self-described success story] which is damaging the host.

  10. Thanks Balder, I like your work too. I’m not a fan of the bloodsports format, but if Ford wants to discuss his adoptive tribe’s loxism, crypsis, and the virulent parasitic racial nature of jewing more generally, one-on-one, I’d be up for that.

  11. Jews can’t fight antisemitism alone a key message at Jerusalem conference

    Yehuda Bauer, a prominent Israeli historian of the Holocaust, spoke during a panel session held on Tuesday about the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and the Working Definition of Antisemitism. “We have to realize that antisemitism is not a Jewish problem but a problem of the societies in which it rises. It’s a cancer which eats the societies in which it comes up,” he said.

    The solution is not to “say how wonderful Jews are,” but “to attack antisemites as people who are destroying our society; they are continuing Nazi ideology…,” Bauer said.

    Jews openly organize and conspire to manipulate and exploit non-jews, inciting others to fight for the interests of jews. The only thing worth debating is how to stop it.

  12. Unz repost for his jewy comentariat: http://www.unz.com/article/reply-to-nathan-cofnas/

    Even jews who can’t refute MacDonald’s facts still compulsively shit on him. Here’s an example from Twitter:

    Aaron Gross: “Kevin MacDonald’s reply to Cofnas. KMac makes some good points here. And a lot of what he says about Jews is true, if unoriginal. My main objection is to KMac’s methods: He’s a dishonest prosecutor, framing a defendant who actually happens to be guilty.”

    Farther down in that thread the patina-of-science sneer morphs into: “he’s sampling on the dependent variable”. They object to KMac’s indictment of jews because it quotes jews.

  13. I wonder if Tanstaafl would debate Luke Ford?

    .
    What would anyone gain from a conversation between Ford and TANS ?

  14. Nick, I’m referring to primarily Whites who existed prior to the time Jews got them to accept a Jewish savior. We can’t prove that pre-Christian Europeans were violently defensive of their own lands and peoples, anymore than we can prove that a lone White woman traveling in Africa in -500 B.C. would’ve been raped, but given our knowledge of racial traits, we can pretty accurately assume what would’ve happened. It took a lot of ideologies to make Europeans start hosting and providing for Jews, and I think we can rationally determine that, before the rabbi-as-god and other universalist philosophies struck Europe, Whites would’ve recognized, and responded accordingly to, this kind of infection.

    Since there’ve been Whites, they’ve been wishfully gullible. but similarly, without some kind of lube, they can did did defend themselves. Many Mongol hordes have been thrown back without any of this crap, and Whites invented computers; it’s a pretty solid conclusion that at least some of them understood what “lying” and “hypocrisy” were before the Jewish conquest began. The vocabulary was there, showing that Whites understood these concepts, and certainly there were many–perhaps even a majority–who simply believed the Jews because they were humanoid, but I think it’s a ridiculous conclusion, particularly given the many times Europeans have recognized and tried to remove Jews, to say that their lies are completely new to this race. I have difficulty imagining every White in a sizable population not seeing Jews operate and discuss it with other people. It’s like expecting them to not use fire–not everyone will invent it, maybe not even a majority, but if they were all that dim…?

    Certainly to a lot of licensed-schooled kids in Europe and America since 1946, MacDonald’s thesis is wholly, completely new. He can join the long and unknown list of people who’ve pointed out the obvious–and I don’t say that to marginalize what he’s done, but rather, to believe he is a successor, not a sudden new inventor of, for the first time ever, recognizing what they’re doing to the societies we’ve built.

  15. Whites gullibility and greatness is seen in the creation of Nations and its subsequent fall.
    I do wonder how long jews have been attached to us. The drive to destroy in them is probably stronger than Whites drive to build.
    The story is pretty much exactly the same all over across every landmass.

    On a side note what is your opinion on Linders recent gab posts? And also, the demise of the kosker neo-neo conservative altright?

    You debating would be great, your voice and insight into the jew menace is second to none.

  16. Thanks Chris. I have not been following anyone on gab…

    #timetokill

    Jan Lamprecht:

    For the record I’m all for terror, violence, murder and war. Anything that saves the white race is good by me. I don’t see why we must always toe the line. If we can’t get our way LEGALLY, then we must do it ILLEGALLY! That seems to be what’s working for Jews & Commies. So why not for us hey?

    I agree.

  17. Kevin MacDonald Vs Nathan Cofnas On Culture Of Critique – 3.5 hours, first hour KMac, last hour Cofnas, middle is Ford.

    KMac realizes there is no substance to Cofnas’ argument. Ford lamely suggests it has value because it promotes “race realism”. Unfortunately KMac fails to see, or at least point out, that in the Taylor/Pinker/Cofnas context this is just a form of alt-jewing, or intersectional jewing, a jew-dominated false opposition to the prevalent anti-”racist” strain of jewing. The prevalent jewing psychopathologizes Whites as a race. The alt-jewing excuses jews as a race. Neither opposes the jewing at the core of the other.

    By far the most common approach jews take to any critique of jewing is to simply silence and punish the critic. In those relatively rare cases, like this one, where that approach can’t be used or hasn’t worked then what jews do is suck up all the air by complaining about the ways they imagine jews could be jewing harder or that some jewing might harm some jews.

  18. https://youtu.be/ARhqt38bMZA?t=2h21m32s

    Cofnas admits his jewy motive for attacking KMac:

    when I became more involved with judaism and the jewish community I became more skeptical because I didn’t feel that jews were acting in the ways he predicts

    https://youtu.be/ARhqt38bMZA?t=2h37m10s

    15 minutes later Cofnas says noticing his jewy motive is ad hominem and says Pinker claims likewise. The jew cries out in pain, as a jew, as he strikes you for noticing that he’s a jew.

    Then Cofnas and Ford babble about “conspiratorial personality”/”conspiracy theory”, i.e. psychopathologizing opposition to jewing.

  19. Tan,
    Is there any way possible for you to do a podcast critique of Kmac debate?
    I don’t think KMac really understands the weight of his argument against Jews. He still for some reason gives them an out.

  20. I’ve not much else to say that I haven’t already written or can just add here. Whether or not MacDonald sees his work as an indictment of the jews, they do. They could try going back to ignoring it, but more likely they’ll press him to renounce his own work, ala Henry Ford. Whether or not they ever get that, they’ll assert that the work has been officially debunked, and thus more aggressively stigmatize and suppress it and any further discussion of it.

  21. It’s fair to separate the man from the work as moral things.

    MacDonald’s primary works are sound morally. MacDonald the man fudges over moral issues awfully.

  22. MacDonald is a scientist and therefore predisposed towards “fairness,” but he really needs to take a harder stance on these issues and use more concrete language. We are not in “competition” with jews anymore than a human body is in “competition” with cancer. jews live in our countries because they want to destroy us. They are self-consciously evil and destructive parasites and they need to be excised as any cancer does.

  23. Kevin MacDonald’s Response with Comments by Nathan Cofnas

    To see Cofnas’ pilpul you have to click the blue “Download Full-text PDF” button, then hover your mouse over the yellow highlighted sections of MacDonald’s text.

    The method, volume, and trivial nature of Cofnas’ comments seem calculated to obscure rather than clarify the true nature of the disagreement. To put it in broad terms, MacDonald has presented a pile of evidence of jew aggression against Whites. Cofnas’ attack-defense is to assert that heebs are just smarter, dindu nuffins, and to characterize MacDonald as personally biased and mentally defective.

    The disagreement over ad hominem captures the absurdity of the broader back and forth. It isn’t possible to copy Cofnas’ popup text, so see this screenshot for what I’m talking about.

    Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, a type of distraction, an attempt to shift attention away from the body of facts being argued to the body (personal traits) of the person arguing.

    In his response to Cofnas, MacDonald uses the term properly, referring to Cofnas’ false implication that he is dishonest and thus his arguments are invalid. As Cofnas put it, “[MacDonald] relies on systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts … misrepresenting sources and distorting history”.

    In his response to MacDonald, Cofnas twists the meaning of the term, equating it to an accusation of “nefarious motivations”, which he associates with his own motivation, “my jewish ethnicity”. Cofnas is in effect claiming that to point out that a jew is motivated by their group identification with other jews is a distraction, a fallacy.

    It is a double lie.

    First, Cofnas admitted to Luke Ford that he was motivated to criticize MacDonald “when I became more involved with judaism and the jewish community”. Cofnas is simply trying to make his own bias in favor of jews off-limits to criticism. His overall “default hypothesis” argument excuses jews, as a group, because they supposedly possess certain traits. His “ad hominem” argument excuses himself, because he is a jew, because it is also supposedly invalid to recognize the individual expression of group traits, at least for jews.

    Second, the whole body of MacDonald’s work concerns the group behavior of jews. Specifically it concerns how jews disguise their motives, particularly by psychopathologizing anyone who notices their behavior, accusing critics not just of having “nefarious motivations” but of being mentally diseased. When MacDonald points out that Cofnas’ is a jew and is exhibiting the stereotypical behavior of his ethnic group he is directly applying his broader argument about jewing, not distracting from it. Ironically, when Cofnas mischaracterizes this as ad hominem, as just the tip of his longer effort to personalize and nitpick and distract from the argument about group behavior, he gives substance to MacDonald’s argument rather than undermining it.

  24. MacDonald is a scientist and therefore predisposed towards “fairness,”

    That only applies to Whites, the rest “fit” their results to the desired result.

  25. comments seem calculated to obscure rather than clarify the true nature of the disagreement.

    Hmmmm, I’ve seen that technique before, just can’t remember WHO uses it.

  26. White – synonym – fair

    I think there has even been a recent kerfuffle about ‘objective science’ merely indoctrinating White privilege. It was talked up by people identifying as right-wing, naturally, unconscious of their self-defeating identification. Where Whites are so very clearly the ‘only’ fair and objective group – as Fred W. also reminds us – it makes no sense to pose as the Jewish media prompts as if we were against the liberal, egalitarian, live and let live, meritocratic values that only we truly hold.

  27. On the so-called “Jewish Question”:

    The players of identity politics on the far right continue ever-so-pathologically to beat the anti-Semitic drum, pointing to the over-representation of Jews in positions of authority, competence and influence (including revolutionary movements).

    Peterson echoes Cofnas. The jews are just smarter, dindu nuffins, the real problem is anyone who criticizes them.

    First, psychologically speaking: why do the reactionary conspiracy theorists even bother? This is a straightforward matter. If you’re misguided enough to play identity politics, whether on the left or the right, then you require a victim (in the right-wing case, European culture or some variant) and a perpetrator (Jews). Otherwise you can’t play the game (a YouTube video I made explicating the rules can be found here). Once you determine to play, however, you benefit in a number of ways. You can claim responsibility for the accomplishments of your group you feel racially/ethnically akin to without actually having to accomplish anything yourself. That’s convenient. You can identify with the hypothetical victimization of that group and feel sorry for yourself and pleased at your compassion simultaneously. Another unearned victory. You simplify your world radically, as well. All the problems you face now have a cause, and a single one, so you can dispense with the unpleasant difficulty of thinking things through in detail. Bonus. Furthermore, and most reprehensibly: you now have someone to hate (and, what’s worse, with a good conscience) so your unrecognized resentment and cowardly and incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly can find a target, and you can feel morally superior in your consequent persecution (see Germany, Nazi for further evidence and information).

    Psychologically speaking, Peterson is describing jew mentality and misattributing it to Whites.

    So, what’s the story? No conspiracy. Get it? No conspiracy. Jewish people are over-represented in positions of competence and authority because, as a group, they have a higher mean IQ. The effect of this group difference (approximately the difference between the typical high school student and the typical state college student) is magnified for occupations/interests that require high general cognitive ability. Equal over-representation may also occur in political movements associated with the left, because high IQ is associated with Openness to Experience, which is in turn associated with liberal/left-leaning political proclivities.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that Ashkenazi Jews are over-represented in any occupations/interests for reasons other than intelligence and the associated effects of intelligence on personality and political belief. Thus, no conspiratorial claims based on ethnic identity need to be given credence.

    Argument by italics. Willful blindness. The jews obsessively organize, openly conspire. An unknown number disguise themselves and their activity.

  28. Very good observation on Peterson criticizing an imaginary form of himself. It’d be rather horrible to be one of them and truly loathe what you know, in your private moments, to be your self. Part of their desire to create these sub-races (“Ashkenazi”) could be hopes that their offspring could be like them, but good inside, and not have to live while hating their own essences.

    Interesting genetic conundrum…to be the best at manipulating people, you have to understand them for who they are, and they quite well understand the empathy, and associated vulnerabilities, of their Europeoidal targets, ergo the Nicean produced version of Christianity. And yet, to be able to understand the desire for empathy, and empathy itself, but not get trapped in it yourself…that’s a nasty burden. Might explain why so many of the #metoo Jew predators wanted to be watched masturbating rather than to actually have sex. Ironic that, if they didn’t kill us, we could probably figure out a way to cure them.

  29. I think the answer to the JQ is much more simple than we realize. I think the Jews are simply genetically predisposed to psychopathy, especially the Dark Triad traits.

    https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-ashkenazi-gene-increases-schizophrenia-1.5294333

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

    Of course, the Jews have already claimed the real psychopaths are internet trolls who point out Jewish behavior.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html

    What would a “tribe of psychopaths” look like? How would they see themselves? How would they be seen by other tribes? What would a loose global network of genetically related psychopaths look like?

  30. Here’s a post I’ve made.

    https://katana17.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/luke-ford-with-macdonald-vs-cofnas-on-culture-of-critique-mar-2018-transcript/

    Luke Ford, an Australian living in the USA, who “converted” to Judaism in 1993, interviews Kevin MacDonald and his response to a recent critique of his highly ignored (by academia), yet important book, “The Culture of Critique“, by the 30 year old, academically unknown, New York jew, Nathan Cofnas. Cofnas was scheduled to come on with MacDonald, but was unable to, due to time zone differences, as he’s in England, studying at Oxford.

    Ford plays somewhat of a devil’s advocate on behalf of Cofnas, quoting some of Cofnas’, yet to be released, responses to MacDonald’s 18,0000 word response to Cofnas’s critique.

    This transcript covers the first 71 minute part of the Youtube video with MacDonald, and not (currently) the remaining part of the total 220 minute video, where Cofnas does appear in the last third of it.

    Overall, my take is that, it’s all a storm in a teacup, with very weak tea being dished up by Cofnas.

    Now, the most likely reason that until now there has been, apparently, no proper academic response to MacDonald’s work, is because its main ideas are true and significant. So what was the message that has been sent out by organized jewry to academics? For over 20 years, it’s been, “Kill the message by totally ignoring it!“

    MacDonald’s main point in his book is that jews, just like other human groups, act as a group to advance their interests often at the expense of other groups. Since organized jewry has maneuvered itself into being the most powerful group in Western societies, it has, and is wrecking utter destruction upon us! Especially by engineering the flooding of every White country, from New Zealand to Norway, with non-Whites, in order to racially and culturally destroy us! And part of the jewish group evolutionary strategy, to use Kmac’s terminology, is to prevent Whites from waking up to what they are doing to us, and responding in kind.

    So, this interview is interesting, in that we get to see Kmac defend his book, his position, in his mild mannered, yet strong way, against a young upstart jew making a name for himself. He fails, but rest assured, that another jew, defending their tribal war against Whites, will step into the breach and fire away.

    Organized jewry is at total war with Whites, attempting to genocide us through whatever means. Kmac has helped us in exposing that, with his academic work, so we should all join together in supporting him, and others like him, in what ever way we can.

    — KATANA

  31. What the Alt-Right and Regressive Left Have in Common

    Their main explanation is oppression. And while oppression is real, especially in past societies, it has become an explanation for all achievement gaps. The increasingly expansive way in which terms like “white supremacy” and “Islamophobia” and “misogyny” are used, and the frequency with which they are hurled at political opponents, are symptoms of a deeper cause. They signify the extent to which some people are under the sway of something like a conspiracy theory. No matter what the evidence, they are convinced that achievement gaps are best explained by oppression, or its remnants.

    On the alt-right, it has become fashionable over the last few years to recycle a trope from 1930s Germany: “The Jewish Question” (to which the Holocaust was supposed to be “The Final Solution”). The contemporary version of the question concerns why Jews have so much influence in cognitively demanding occupations, including science, medicine, law, and politics. Although the “JQ” (as alt-righters call it) has a mundane answer, many subscribe to elaborate theories to account for the fact that most Jews don’t conform to the stereotype alt-righters expect them to.

    Quillette is the alt-jew Commentary. Alt-jewing is false opposition to jewing, never identified as such, and real opposition to Whites, misrepresented as camaraderie.

    Whining about “stereotypes” and “conspiracy theories” is one step short of more explicitly screeching about “anti-semitism”. It’s the same psychopathologization of anyone jews regard as enemies.

    For example, when a scholar documents the fact that 4 out of the 10 speakers at an inaugural white nationalist conference were Jewish, along with a vast array of other evidence that conflicts with alt-right dogma, the predictable response by people in the grip of an ideology is that Jews do this to create a smokescreen: it provides cover for all of the other Jews who plot against white nationalists.

    Presenting AmRen jewing as if it’s something other than jewing is literally providing cover for jewing.

    Disguise and deception, and especially playing games with identity, are what all forms of jewing have in common. Taylor, for instance, regards jews as “white” and yet at the same time excuses them as jews, just like most other “race realists” do. It’s the same game but in reverse on the “anti-racist” side of jewing, where jews are jews until it’s better for them to be “white”.

  32. jewing: jews are great, like everyone else, have no influence, Whites are stupid/crazy/evil

    alt-jewing: jews are great, have more influence because they’re smarter, Whites are stupid/crazy/evil

  33. Tanstaafl,

    In your opinion why have they decided to answer Macdonald after 20 years? What has changed and why are they answering in such a weak way. I could come up with a better critique than Cofnas. They appear to be putting more effort into the obfuscation side of things.

  34. This Tanstaal critique of the Nathan Cofnas ‘s quasi-scholarly nasty toned assault on The Culture Of Critique is magnificnetly lucid.

  35. Why critique MacDonald now? Because awareness and resentment of jewing is spreading. Cofnas admits he’s alarmed by MacDonald’s popularity with the alt-right. I suspect Nehlen’s embrace and promotion of MacDonald is what ultimately got Cofnas the green light to publish. The critique is lame because that’s all it could be, and frankly that’s all it needs to be for jews and their tools to declare MacDonald debunked and discredited. Will it stick? It doesn’t have to. It’s an alt-jewing stopgap until jewing-as-usual can outright criminalize criticism of jewing.

  36. Good call, Fred. Hitler was probably the last (excessively) nice leader to treat it like the JQ, giving them many opportunities to move to foreign hidey-holes and start over and convince their new hosts to firebomb millions of their former “fellow citizens.” Mein Kampf makes clear he understood the issue, but he mistakenly believed he was dealing with humans who loved peace and wanted to live nice fair lives and just needed a gratuitous redo in order to have a chance at reformation. His story should show future leaders, if we ever have any, that there really is no hope in that department.

    If any philosopher-leaders ever arise in future, hopefully they’ll treat it like the JP and not, like Hitler, believe that supporting their plan for “their own land” will cause good faith in those and other matters. The only way to cure this is the use of heavy antibiotics.

  37. The Jewish Path to Success:

    In a word, what Jews fear is how it looks to the goyim: clannishness and underlying hypocrisy about meritocracy and nepotism.

    What’s that, you say? Hypocrisy? Most Jews would probably tell you that they find the very idea of nepotism abhorrent and unfair.

    After all, haven’t Jews been at the forefront of the liberal revolution, insisting on equality of rights and opportunity not just for themselves but for other minority groups? Haven’t Jews championed the principle of merit, supported affirmative action, attacked the idea of restrictive quotas and legacy admissions, and striven to overcome the impression that they are clannish and insular?

    All true. But at the same time, like other immigrant groups, Jews have relied first and foremost on familial resources to adapt, survive and prosper in America.

    . . .

    How can we square this long record of familial and ethnic nepotism with the public insistence of Jews on equal opportunity and merit? While most would surely point to the long Jewish tradition of social idealism, a more practical reason may be found in the disproportionate benefit Jews derive from a meritocratic system.

    . . .

    The whole history of American Jewry is a tribute to the power of Jewish nepotism. Indeed, nepotism has been a positive and wholesome force in Jewish life for thousands of years. It is high time to acknowledge and even celebrate this fact instead of trying to keep it hidden like a shameful family secret.

    Skulking, double-dealing, euphemizing parasitism as mere nepotism.

  38. Cofnas’ 2015 paper, Science Is Not Always ‘Self-Correcting’ – Fact–Value Conflation and the Study of Intelligence (drive dot google dot com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZbGt6eTgwTDlybEE/view?pli=1):

    Some prominent scientists and philosophers have stated openly that moral and political considerations should influence whether we accept or promulgate scientific theories. This widespread view has significantly influenced the development, and public perception, of intelligence research. Theories related to group differences in intelligence are often rejected a priori on explicitly moral grounds. Thus the idea, frequently expressed by commentators on science, that science is “self-correcting”—that hypotheses are simply abandoned when they are undermined by empirical evidence—may not be correct in all contexts. In this paper, documentation spanning from the early 1970s to the present is collected, which reveals the influence of scientists’ moral and political commitments on the study of intelligence. It is suggested that misrepresenting findings in science to achieve desirable social goals will ultimately harm both science and society.

    . . .

    Newby and Newby’s strategy is to document alleged similarities between the theories in The Bell Curve and those of morally bad people such as Nazis. They write: “we should recognize that the eugenics movement of the 1920s and 1930s was respectable and generally accepted among society’s elites until Hitler’s Holocaust discredited the movement during World War II” (p. 16). Of course, the scientific basis of eugenics was not discredited by the Holocaust any more than the theory of relativity was discredited by the bombing of Hiroshima. The fact that the scientific basis of eugenics was not “discredited” by the Holocaust—and Newby and Newby cite no other reason to think it has been discredited—means that their strategy of pointing out alleged similarities between the scientific views of Herrnstein and Murray and Nazi eugenicists does not, according to Alex Barber’s espoused views, undermine the science of Herrnstein and Murray’s book. Newby and Newby conclude their paper (p. 23), citing Lane (1994), by asserting that The Bell Curve contains “tainted sources”—referring to the fact that some of the researchers whose work The Bell Curve cites are allegedly fascists and white supremacists, and that some of the papers it cites were published in the Mankind Quarterly, which is a journal edited by a supposedly bad person (Roger Pearson).

    . . .

    Block and Dworkin point out that we would condemn a Nazi scientist for conducting research in nuclear physics knowing that their discoveries would be used to build atom bombs to drop on innocent people. “At some point the harmful consequences for human welfare of one’s research must enter into the decision whether to pursue it” (p. 81). This is no doubt correct. A scientist should not conduct research to help an evil regime kill millions of people. Block and Dworkin claim that the Nazi-physicist thought experiment illustrates in principle that a scientist can be morally obligated to refrain from, or to sabotage, honest research to avoid negative social consequences. A scientist must always, they say, weigh the value of honest research against its “harmful consequences for human welfare.” (Chomsky 1976, 294–295 makes the same point by arguing that a psychologist in Nazi Germany ought to refrain from investigating whether Jews have a genetic disposition to engage in usury, lest whatever findings they obtained be used for propaganda.)

    But the situation of the psychometrician in the United States is qualitatively different from that of the nuclear physicist in Nazi Germany. The German physicist knows what will happen if they succeed in figuring out how to split the atom. The scientist in the United States does not know to what use their work will be put, and this is a difference in principle, not degree, between their case and that of the Nazi physicist.

    This is intersectional jewing. Cofnas is making the case that jew-centric what’s-best-for-the-jews moralizing, against “nazis”, is interfering with scientific research exposing racial differences. He postures as if he disagrees with this anti-”racist” jewing, in principle, when in fact he does not. Cofnas’ jewing is as anti-”nazi” as the jewing he’s criticizing, he just wants to carve out a special exception for his kind of “race realist” jewing, specifically concerning intelligence, which he sees as useful to justify jewing more generally.

  39. Skulking, double-dealing, euphemizing parasitism as mere nepotism.

    .
    They didn’t touch on sabotage and murder as rungs on their ladder. The current russian mobster billionaires were involved in many murders. Many instances of this can be cited from all over the world.

  40. I would suggest that readers here get a copy of Rockwells “this time the world” and go to pages 116 and read on. To read his awakening to jews is worth your time.
    The entire book is good but it is amusing to read his “redpill” moments, around 1954ish.
    Chapter 7 around the 34min mark:
    https://archive.org/details/ThisTimeTheWorld1961-GeorgeLincolnRockwellPDFAudiobook/7+-+Chapter+7.mp3

    The jews game plan is nothing new today. Page after page in Rockwells books, you see the same jewish plays we see today. From calling everyone nazis to antiWhite everything. Pleas on emotions to change what jews dont like.
    It truly is annoying they get away with it, its not like nobody has written about this preKmac.

  41. It truly is annoying they get away with it, its not like nobody has written about this preKmac.

    .
    Absolutely ! How gentiles return to the same folly of gullibility, generation after generation, is beyond me. Being forewarned for centuries by the greatest of minds, Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Marlowe etc.

  42. When Cofnas accuses MacDonald of “cherry-picking” and “misrepresenting sources”, he’s talking about the kind of thing he was accused of in 2015: A Letter to Nathan Cofnas: Please Stop Misrepresenting my Research.

    Ironically, that controversy concerned the exposure of anti-”racist” jew Stephen Gould’s infamous projection, whereby he falsely accused the dead White scientist Samuel Morton of fraud.

    In Cofnas’ “Self-Correcting” paper, obliquely tilting against the anti-”racist” jewing of science, he cited the work of John Michaels, who first revealed the fraudulence of Gould’s accusation against Morton. Michaels objected to this citation, accusing Cofnas of “cherry-picking” and “selectively-edited misrepresentation”, because Michaels is anti-”racist”, and Cofnas didn’t mention that. As Michaels jewsplained:

    You have indeed misrepresented my paper. As Gould did in so much of his research, you have cherry-picked only those findings that you personally deemed worthy of mention. In so doing, you have given the false impression that my paper as a whole supports your position.

    Terms like “misrepresentation” and “cherry-picked” provide a patina of reason for an otherwise hollow complaint that amounts to “you can’t argue for something I’m against”.

    Back then Cofnas rejected Michaels’ complaint. Now Cofnas levels the same accusations against MacDonald – and not on his own behalf, but on behalf of fellow tribemates who, in Cofnas’ mind, MacDonald’s indictment of jewing should or should not have cited.

    Hypocrisy is a trite interpretation of such behavior. The deeper interpretation is that tribalism trumps facts and logic. The common conceit of both anti-”racist” and “race realist” jewing is, as Cofnas so delicately phrased it, the idea that “moral and political considerations should influence whether we accept or promulgate scientific theories”.

  43. The standard complaints about Jews from around the world today are stereotypical of complaints about Jews even in ancient and pre-Christian times. The MacDonald/Salter ethnic conflict / EGI, developed most effectively by eginotes.wordpress.com and @jabowery while at majorityrights.com, is a massive improvement on previous models.

  44. I’ve agreed to talk about Cofnas’ attack on MacDonald and jewing more generally with Luke Ford, tomorrow at 19:30PT.

  45. Hopefully you record it yourself as well, just incase some jewing takes place.
    Who is this Luke Ford is he one of us(proWhite) or?
    I must admit I dont know who he is. Ive seen his name but thats it.

  46. Luke Ford is no more a Jew via religious conversion than Nick Dean would be converted into a nigger by listening to hip-hop, adorning himself in gold chains and wearing his pants low so as to expose his boxer shorts. We call the latter “wiggers,” and should therefore feel no shame in calling the former “jiggers.”

    I want Tan to tell Luke Ford that I think he’s a fucking joke, and accordingly, I think Ford should go suck a fat nigger’s dick. Lulz

  47. Khaled Beydoun: “An estimated 60% of France’s prison inmates are Muslims. Another illustration of virulent Islamophobia in France.”

    This is the jew pattern of apologia Cuddihy described in Ordeal. Step 1: Point at harm caused by the parasite. Step 2: Psychopathologize and shift blame to the host. “Critical race theory” is the generalization of this anti-White jewing for use by other non-Whites.


  48. but he mistakenly believed he was dealing with humans who loved peace and wanted to live nice fair lives…

    .
    That is a major fault of Whites, projecting our attitudes onto other races. It is deadly!

  49. Bad for the Jews – How to understand anti-Semitism in Trump’s America.

    White nationalists’ depiction of Jews is such a throwback to what I learned about when I was in Sunday school. It’s exactly how the Nazis depicted Jews. They’re both these rapacious moneybags and left-wing radicals. They’re sniveling weaklings and all-powerful puppet masters. These are not new images and they’ve always been contradictory.

    Jews play all sides, much of it by disguising themselves and their actions, and always depict someone else as the problem. Slate isn’t an explicit organ of jewry, yet (like the rest of the jewsmedia) it depicts jews and Whites as moral and political opposites, and unequivocally sides with jews, against Whites.

  50. Jews play all sides, much of it by disguising themselves and their actions….

    GOLDEN WORDS!!
    .
    (what better way to win, than knowing the cards in all hands ?)

  51. Jordan Peterson Is Right On The “Jewish Question,” But He Ducks The Larger Question

    Diversity makes minorities foes of the majority, and also paranoid enough to be more aggressive about acquiring material wealth and power than the majority is.

    With that in mind, we can stop worrying about which ethnic groups are good or bad and start realizing that the presence of any ethnic groups other than our own is fatal for our civilization. First, we will be displaced by newcomers selected for aggressive desire for material power; second, our civilization will tear itself apart through distrust and internal conflict; finally, we will be conquered and/or outbred and cease entirely to exist.

    Anti-Semitism on the other hand presents a problem. It is factually incorrect; all civilizations perish by lower-caste revolt, and ours is no exception, which means that this problem would occur without Jews and, even if we killed all Jews tomorrow, our problem would still exist. It is misleading, which will cause us to attack a false or at least minor problem and ignore the big problem that is the cause of most of our woes. It also leads, dangerously, toward demonizing a group of people which will in turn lead to violence against them. Once we are done with the murders, and our problems remain, we will be exhausted and promptly fall back into the same decay, thoroughly defeating ourselves with no one to blame but our own stupidity.

    Here “Brett Stephens” acknowledges jewing is fatal, yet still argues against “anti-semitism”. It’s schizophrenic. He has a history of similar special pleading, eg. Why “The Jewish Question” Is Over and Why the “Jewish Question” is the wrong question. I suspect he’s either a jew or somehow mixed, but I don’t know if he’s ever admitted it. In this piece in place of the more common “as a jew”, he writes instead, “as someone who grew up with jewish kids”.

  52. [@TANSTAAFL: possible items for your TFeed:

    http://www78.zippyshare.com/v/IbvJewkr/file.html
    -for your listening convenience, the youtube audio-only track of
    Morgoth’s Review streamed live 24 Mar 2018 – Hangout 6: The Great British Shutdown (crackdown on the establishment’s ideological enemies)
    as mp3, 32kbps / 24Hz (no mods made, takes a while to download now since YT capped the d/l speed for those anxious to preserve items)
    or listen at the YT page (assuming still up)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqhau9qW8dI
    Morgoth, Sven Longshanks, Arya Sattya and Gentleman Jim Crow

    Cuck Island’s latest imposter-govt’s excesses

    ———————
    http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-akhenaten-kosher-king-3-22-18/
    http://renegadebroadcasting.com/shows/charles/TruthHertz-2018-03-22.mp3

    - first listen for me for a year, is cholly recapturing his halcyon days at Oracle Broadcasting…

    https://ia801000.us.archive.org/21/items/TimelineOfTheRothschildFamily/Timeline%20of%20the%20Rothschild%20family..MP3
    https://archive.org/details/TimelineOfTheRothschildFamily
    Andrew Carrington Hitchcock’s pre-Synagogue of Satan compendium, TTS

    ]

  53. https://jordanbpeterson.com/podcasts/podcast-episode/episode-41/
    - from TFeed.
    Having listened to this I am more convinced than ever that “Jordan Peterson” has a (((biological component))) to his worldview. Maybe some admixture along the lines of Jon Bjerkness’s.
    In the comments at Morgoth’s Review, current or last article, there was some reference to how much revenue the likes of him (Peterson) are generating thru their online podcasting. Quite staggering numbers, worth verifying however that might be done…

  54. SECOND REPLY TO NATHAN COFNAS

    MacDonald’s main point:

    I am interested in looking at specific movements that, in my view, can be shown to be Jewishly motivated and influential. I am not interested in providing a general theory of Jewish viewpoint diversity or accounting for the attitudes of each and every Jew.

    Over and over MacDonald notes that Cofnas does not seem to comprehend this point, much less try to counter it. I say Cofnas understood, but systematically tried to confuse and obscure MacDonald’s point, which was his way of countering it.

    Over and over Cofnas also asserted his own point, his “default hypothesis”, that jews dindu nuffins. Here are just the occurences MacDonald quotes:

    Isn’t Jewish over-representation in conflicting movements evidence in favor of the default hypothesis?

    If the leaders of the opposition to allegedly Jewish-interest-promoting movements are also Jewish, this counts as evidence against the theory in CofC and supports the default hypothesis.

    Yes, Jews oppose anti-Semitism. But this is what we would expect if the default hypothesis were true. All people who face attack will try to recruit members of the group that threatens them to their side.

    If large numbers of influential Jews are fanatically opposed to Jewish interests, this simply does not fit his theory—it is more consistent with the default hypothesis

    If Jews support immigration and multiculturalism throughout the diaspora and are generally critical of Israel, doesn’t this make them similar to high-IQ, urban white gentiles? That would seem to support the default hypothesis.

    MacDonald seems to be saying that if we find Jews overrepresented on both sides of a scientific debate, we can speculate about the motivations of one side (namely, the liberal side) and conclude that they were motivated by ethnic self-interest. Why is the default hypothesis not more reasonable, i.e., members of a high IQ urban population are overrepresented in scientific debates on all sides?

    Cofnas is saying that everything jews do supports his “default hypothesis”. He’s a jewy Johnny Cochran, “It don’t matter if the glove fits, you must acquit!”

  55. “thus increasing the competitive advantage of Jews and weakening organized gentile resistance (i.e., anti-Semitism).”

    Am I reading that right? Is Cofnas basically saying that “organized Gentile resistance” is anti-Semitism? If so isn’t that a big Freudian slip on his part?

  56. “I suspect he’s either a jew or somehow mixed”

    If this is the same Bret Stephens who writes for the NYT and who used to write for the WSJ then YES he’s a Jew. His family’s original surname was Ehrlich (I read this in a Steve Sailer blog post on VDare.com in 2016 or 2017). I guess they changed the family name because it was too hard to pronounce in English. ;)

  57. “White nationalists’ depiction of Jews is such a throwback to what I learned about when I was in Sunday school. It’s exactly how the Nazis depicted Jews. They’re both these rapacious moneybags and left-wing radicals. They’re sniveling weaklings and all-powerful puppet masters. These are not new images and they’ve always been contradictory.”

    LOL! They aren’t contradictory at all! Being both rapacious moneybags AND left-wing radicals is high-lighted in Animal Farm! And BEING a sniveling weakling is what LEADS one to be a puppet-master. In other words you engage in behind the scenes, dishonest manipulation rather than an honest face to face fight!

    But, hey, he’s right about one thing. NONE of this is new!

  58. Over and over MacDonald notes that Cofnas does not seem to comprehend this point . . . .
    Even MacDonald doesn’t seem to comprehend his point. Compare his summary of CoC to mine.

  59. Sorry, that wasn’t MacDonald’s summary of book three. That was just his description of one theme. But “jb” is right — it’s all about atomization to prevent effective opposition to the Jewish group juggernaut.

  60. Nathan Cofnas: “My new article on how the establishment’s noble lies about race encourage people to believe in @TOOEdit Kevin MacDonald’s pseudoscience: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/04/16/analyzing-kevin-macdonalds-culture-of-critique-and-the-alt-rights-embrace-of-anti-jewish-ideology/

    Cofnas is jewsplaining how “noble” anti-White/anti-”racist” jewing is bad for the jews. His “default hypothesis” is just a new form of the same old special pleading – excusing jewing and shifting blame to “anti-semitism”.

    Cofnas unselfconsciously describes this typically jewy inversion as “the mother of all conspiracy theories”. Indeed, it is the same jew-centric/jew-first view jews have espoused for millennia, a view in which nothing jews do is their fault, “anti-semites” are the real problem.

  61. Nathan Cofnas: “My main point is I don’t feel like the beneficiary of ethnic nepotism.”

    My main point is that MacDonald has provided an indictment of jewing, thus jews seek to destroy MacDonald. Cofnas is the quintessential jew, crying out in pain as he strikes.

    When Cofnas isn’t fretting his tribe hasn’t done enough for him, he’s fretting they’re doing too much:

    Charges/insinuations of anti-Semitism or insensitivity to Jews should be made extremely carefully, especially by leaders of influential organizations like the ADL whom the media (wrongly) treat as spokesmen for the Jewish community. If Greenblatt and others continue to lob accusations of anti-Semitism and insensitivity at conservatives as a political weapon, the accusations will lose their bite. Two-and-a-half thousand years ago Aesop taught us why that might be dangerous.

    This jew’s jewing is too much even for Breezy Steve to laugh off.

    Steve Sailer: “As an experiment, try writing two papers: the first denouncing White Privilege, the second denouncing Jewish Privilege. See which one proves more disastrous to your career.”

    Steve Sailer: “But of course the reason that your Jewish Privilege has never been investigated by bureaucrats, social scientists, and plaintiff’s lawyers is because Jewish Privilege is a Thing, much more so than White Privilege, which is constantly researched.”

    Steve Sailer: “That the famous White Privilege barely exists, so feel free to libel whites. In contrast, the unmentioned Jewish Privilege is so powerful that you’d have to be a fool to screw with the Jews.”

    Sailer here admits he has noticed jews are not “white” but the political opposite of White – something I don’t think he’s ever noticed amidst the pages and pages he’s spent dancing around semitical correctness, which he ironically describes as “the war on noticing”. Just four days ago he was still playing his usual game, misidentifying anti-White jews as “white professors”/”sophisticated urban whites”.

    Among other things, ethnic nepotism explains why prominent jews like Turkheimer and Pinker praise nobody jew Cofnas, even though his just-so “default hypothesis” contradicts their own dissembling on race and IQ.

  62. On the so-called “Jewish Question” – Jordan B. Peterson

    Update April 24 2018: A recent critic attempted to take my argument apart arithmetically

    It’s Peterson who is trying to make a purely statistical argument, based on the just-so story that jews are just smarter. The actual critique concerns group identity and ethnocentrism, not smarts:

    What explains this? Ethnic nepotism, i.e. identity politics. Jews priviliege others Jews with access to power, money, and positions to perpetuate Jewish influence in America.

    You don’t have to be a mathematician or a PhD of anything to notice that jews and Whites are treated like political opposites.

  63. Nathan Cofnas: “Jews tried to be white nationalists. E.g., 40% of the speakers at the first AmRen conference were Jews. But they got chased away by Kevin MacDonald fans. It’s ironic: MacDonald predicts there won’t be white nationalist Jews, and there aren’t that many because of MacDonald.… https://t.co/LVkq8OYzTD

    Nathan Cofnas: “As soon as a non-anti-Semitic white nationalist organization was created, Jews showed up and said “We’re here to help.” White nationalists told them to piss off, now complain that Jews don’t support them.”

    As I’ve already pointed out:

    Cofnas’s arguments are not new. He has essentially formalized, with a “patina of science”, the kind of excuses and sneers jews and crypto-jews have been making for years. Unable to refute the quotes and facts MacDonald cites, the best his critics can do is insinuate that MacDonald is the problem, that his scholarly criticism is somehow unfairly biased against jews.

    Cofnas dissembles and dissimulates. He sees himself first and foremost as a jew. Like jews more generally, fake pro-White jews see Whites as Other, they just try harder to pretend otherwise. The result is farcical. The faux-White jew “helps” Whites by constantly screeching about “anti-semitism”, just like any more overtly anti-White tribemate.

  64. Responding to Cofnas, Kevin MacDonald: “This is nonsense. I have often written that the Alt Right etc. should be open to Jews. And I make [no] prediction that this won’t happen. At some point it would be rational for Jews to support the Alt Righ–when multiculturalism isn’t working for them. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/09/17/the-alt-right-and-the-jews/

    Cofnas flusters MacDonald. The Alt Right and the Jews actually presents good reasons jews should be excluded, citing testimony indicating that past intellectuals thought it good and right to be open to alt-jewing, and how this mistake led to their subversion and marginalization. Yet MacDonald still imagines intellectuals know best:

    At the same time, I am often dismayed by how some people associated with the Alt Right express their views on Jewish issues. I have often thought that anyone who hasn’t read a lot in the area and has an IQ of less than 120 should not be allowed to discuss Jewish issues in public.

    The most important ideas are the simplest. Who is us, who is the enemy, how can we defeat them? These are ideas anyone can understand and in fact already freely discuss, though mostly without any mention of jews, or only in a positive (i.e. truly stupid) light. Whites are undone not by any shortcoming of White morons, but by the shortcomings of White intellectuals, specifically wishful thinking and equivocation vis-a-vis the jews.

  65. Peterson is a dissembling doofus. To him, it’s all in our heads. We have no real interests as living organisms. It’s all about rationalization and insecurity and other psychological mumbo jumbo.

    The point of “identity politics” is that we’re alive, and like all healthy living things we want to stay alive. Life exists at various levels of organization, both below and above the level of the person, and the expiration of a human body does not mean that the life embodied therein is gone. The person’s gene structures live on, to some degree or another in others or in the group as a whole.

  66. Is Jordan Peterson Enabling Jew Hatred? (Jordan Peterson’s Hitler And Holocaust Obsessions):

    Peterson’s willingness to answer questions about “Jewish success” and his interest in IQ literature is “suspicious” said Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of history at Emory University and author of “Denying the Holocaust,” who won a libel case in Britain against prominent Holocaust denier David Irving.

    Lipstadt said that Peterson’s statements on Jewish intelligence reminded her of Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology who the Southern Poverty Law Center has described as “the neo-Nazi movement’s favorite academic.” MacDonald has written several books criticizing Jewish intellectual culture. (Peterson links to a critique of one of MacDonald’s books at the end of his blog post on Jewish intelligence.) Lipstadt said that MacDonald’s academic language obscures the anti-Semitism behind his opinions. She worries the same is true of Peterson.

    It’s real in her mind – every Peterson is just a MacDonald who doesn’t know it yet.

  67. Michael Shermer: “I can vouch for @jordanbpeterson that he’s no Kevin MacDonald @deborahlipstadt His analysis that almost anyone could be a Nazi (banality of evil) is a legit position even though I disagree: the Eichmann’s of the Reich were deeply anti-Semitic more than most, alpinists of evil.”

    Three shockingly different opinions about what’s good for the jews! The conceit that Peterson and Shermer so unselfconsciously share with Lipstadt is that the jews define evil.

  68. It’s funny the way they demonstrate the unworkability of flexibility as long as we recognize it as such for us.

  69. There is even a video where Peterson lavishes support for the Zionist project even as he continues to deny our equivalent advantage as necessary, preferred or merely an equal right.

  70. And Kevin Macdonald gives only the softest criticism of the Jews. Saying he’s no Kevin Macdonald, like Macdonald is Heinrich Himmler. On one of the History Reviewed videos someone said when you oppose the Jews, if you’re in for an inch, you’re in for a mile.

  71. when you oppose the Jews, if you’re in for an inch, you’re in for a mile.

    Can’t there be a spectrum, from soft awareness to total knowledge?

  72. Fred W
    Tan pointed it out. They accept no criticism. With them it’s a zero sum game. They will lock an old woman up over a disagreement about history. They will starve the citizens of an entire country to change the regime or population. I like a spectrum myself but my guess is that to them Steve Bannon is no different than Adolph Hitler.

  73. Yes, I realize (((they))) accept no criticism. I meant a spectrum on our side, where newbies can enter at varying degrees of awareness. It is a bit much to expect the newly woke to go full Alex Linder.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>